Major Power Factor Rifles in USPSA

[Bill Sahlberg]

The AMU guys had 40 round Gremlin mags. They were god awful long but they had them. Looked to be standard mags with very long aluminum extensions (which were polished BRIGHT).

Watching them shoot their cadence seemed to be right with the .223 shooters.

Kevin,

I make both 32 rnd and 45 rnd "Higher Capacity" magazines for all makes of 308, these magazines that you saw couldn't have been any uglier than mine :-)

Bill

[bigbrowndog]

Basically its a 308x1.5" and its been around for decades.

There is nothing new, here.

trapr

[Harmon]

its based on the grendel(PPC) brass instead of the 7mm BR brass.

its neat, and a good idea, i would like to shoot it to see how it compares to 223.

harmon

[M ammo]

I don't know Jim. 6.5x55 has been around for 113 years now, and it's still not very common. But, it's still my favorite whitetail cartridge.

HAHAHA you know what I mean,,

after a match,,, what is on the ground.. .223/5.56, 7.62x39, 308 Win and not much of that,

Jim M ammo

[bigbrowndog]

hence the term,......basically.

they are both nominally 1.5" length and both nominally .443 -.470 base sizes, there isn't much difference in capacity, performance, or appearance.

trapr

[Sako92S]

Most of our rifle guys whom are competing seriously have abandoned both 7.62x39 and 6.5 Grendel based rifles. Only seriously takrn option is .223 AR-15 based rifle.

[el pres]

Um I am no USPSA rule guy, but doesn't there have to be like 500 of them to be legal in any division except open? or is that just a pistol thing. KurtM

Well I dont know but I suspect that if it was me or some other joe shmo then it could come up.

Come on now Kurt, these boys are from the "AMU".

[Chris]

...

Edited October 29, 2009 by Chris

[kurtm]

Guys...lighten up, it was a joke!

[lmccrock]

Guys...lighten up, it was a joke!

Too late!

From the 2008 Rifle Rules http://www.uspsa.org/rules/2008RifleRules.pdf

By the way, there are 2009 books online. Looks like a replacement barrel is not disallowed in App. D4 (2009 rifle rulebook). So there is nothing preventing a caliber change. The "2009 Combined" rules are unclear and refer to section D4, which is the L10 definition in that book (editing issue), but elsewhere says a replacement barrel is legal, as long as it is the same length as original.

Maybe we should shut up and leave good enough alone? Just about every AR at a match is heavily customized; who buys an AR and leaves it alone?

If AMU makes it work, and it gets into some kind of commercial or military use, the cost will come down.

Lee

[TMC]

Um I am no USPSA rule guy, but doesn't there have to be like 500 of them to be legal in any division except open? or is that just a pistol thing. KurtM

We asked Carl about this and he said the caliber was not illegal. We weren't trying to get them DQ'd just wanted to know if handgun rules applied to rifles.

I still don't like trick rifles to play a game built on my dime.

Edited October 28, 2009 by TMC

[kellyn]

I still don't like trick rifles to play a game built on my dime.

So the AMU (and Marine and Air Force and Navy and National Guard and Coast Guard and various LEO shooting teams etc etc) should just go away. Believe me, the stuff coming out of the AMU practical shooting team goes directly to helping our military in the field. Plus they put on a great 3 gun match! I can think of a lot worse use of my tax dollars.

But beyond defending the AMU, the cartridge may have the performance of a .308 X 1.5 but it works in an normal AR platform. I don't think a .308X1.5 would?????

I don't see a massive run on .30 Gremlins as they are only good for USPSA and IPSC. But I wonder, would a .30 Gremlin would have been worth the 8 points that I lost the ERC by? Looking back, I would have to say HELL YEAH.

[jasmap]

I gotta agree with Kelly. The AMU is making advancements that firearms companies make or try to make except the AMU has a direct line to the troops. Personally I am GLAD it's on my dime. Look at guys like Jim Lambert of Firebird who has done a lot for shooters by making advancements that few others can. The AMU may not take on all his ideas or guys like him but they see what's out there and they are proactive. The AMU aren't just shooters. There's much more to it.

[Chronoman]

Here is the place to comment on the new development of major power factor rifles in USPSA Multigun and (eventually) IPSC Rifle.

I have seen the Gremlin (the nickname of the AMU's new toy) and expect that it will become a major player in matches that recognize power factors. But boy will it be expensive to run one!

So I ask those that were there, has the Army ruined USPSA Multigun?

I'm sure that it will be available as an AR upper soon---or just shoot all A's and don't worry!

Chronoman

[smokshwn]

I still don't like trick rifles to play a game built on my dime.

If there is a choice as to where my hard earned dimes go when its time to send them, the last place that I worry about them being utilized properly is the AMU. Yes this last weekend Daniel and Robbie played a "game". However, it is in no small part that there playing a game plays in training our soldiers to be as effective as possible at putting rounds on target. The skills that the AMU is able to pass on to our troops has a direct relationship to "playing a game".

[Harmon]

will a 20 inch 7.62X39 shooting 150 grain handload ammo not make the PF?

or is it a magazine issue?

[iainmcphersn]

Hmm, a new cartridge which works on an AR platform with a much greater wound potential being tested by members of our military... What with the hype about the 5.56 NATO's lack of wounding potential, this seems like a excellent use of my tax money and running it hard in competition should help prove it out.

[gose]

will a 20 inch 7.62X39 shooting 150 grain handload ammo not make the PF?

or is it a magazine issue?

Wolf even has factory 154s that should make major in a 20"

[dt1]

I had the good fortune to squad with Daniel and Robbie at the Area 6 3-gun match earlier this month and was able to watch these new rifles in action. As Kelly mentioned earlier, there didn't appear to be any compromise in cadence vs a 223 and the large magazines didn't hinder the negotiation of any stage for either of them. The mags were about as long as my DPMS 45 round 223 mag (maybe a little longer?).

The new caliber didn't seem to be of any advantage on the long range steel, but those guys really gobbled up points on all the paper target stages by shooting major.

In discussing the caliber with Robbie, I believe he said they were planning to dispense with necking up the 6.5mm Grendel and simply load the 125gr Nosler ballistic tip bullet into 7.62 x 39 brass. As Tod mentioned, they said they were loading the round with a "special" powder that wasn't readily available to the general public and didn't think that commercially available powders would safely allow the round to make major. I watched them shoot the chronograph and they both comfortably made major w/their rifles.

That said, Daniel and Robbie both won their classes at A-63G because they shot all three guns better than anyone else, not because they had a better rifle caliber.

My only beef with this new round for USPSA matches is the availability of powder to safely make major (if it's true). IMO, everyone needs to at least have access to the same stuff and be able to make a decision as to whether or not it's worth using.

FWIW, we run a fairly popular carbine match here in Birmingham and I've had a couple of folks ask me if this new round would be OK to use in the "heavy metal" (optics and irons) divisions. I've told them no, that it would compromise the spirit of those divisions. We have several people who shoot AR-10's, FNFAL's, MIA1's etc and it wouldn't be fair (in my opinion as MD) to allow the new round there.

I guess that's one of the things about the "tactical" or "outlaw" matches vs USPSA. The match director (aka the "benevolent dictator") can make such decisions based on what they think's good/fair for their match.

David

Edited October 29, 2009 by dt1

[Charles Bond]

As noted by the "benevolent dictator" above, the "outlaw" matches vary wildely as to what equipment can and can not be used for their matches. Most of the non USPSA matches I have seen do not award major power score for anything other than heavy metal and this has to be 30 caliber or above. Most of those also use a neutralization rule so the hits are more about shot placement regardless of the caliber. So when one buiilds a better mousetrap for a USPSA multi gun match, what you end up with is a better platform for USPSA matches only or possiblly a faster gun for heavy metal if the match rules of the "other" match will allow it.

Maybe my grandchildren will one day get to shoot under a unified set of rules for all 3 gun matches. But on the filp side, I support David's decision not to allow this in his most excellent Steel City carbine matches simply because, if it is not generally available and would not be fair to oher heavy metal shooters,

[kurtm]

At the risk of drifting here, I see alot about "fair" to other shooters here in relation to gear, but no-one seems to think an invisible target for some is UNFAIR. What Up??

As for the Legality of the cartride....It was a joke, to poke fun at my amigos Robbie and Daniel. Anyone who knows me, knows I have little use for the 77 page booklet ( no offence here) and if there are .30 cal ARs already, which there ARE, this would be NO DIFFERENT.

[Sako92S]

will a 20 inch 7.62X39 shooting 150 grain handload ammo not make the PF?

or is it a magazine issue?

Yes it will and even 145gr bullet can be loaded safely to meet major PF. (both 16" and 20" barrels)

I have written info (reloading data) somewhere in this board 1 to 2 years ago.

[smokshwn]

At the risk of drifting here, I see alot about "fair" to other shooters here in relation to gear, but no-one seems to think an invisible target for some is UNFAIR. What Up??

As for the Legality of the cartride....It was a joke, to poke fun at my amigos Robbie and Daniel. Anyone who knows me, knows I have little use for the 77 page booklet ( no offence here) and if there are .30 cal ARs already, which there ARE, this would be NO DIFFERENT.

Since apparently no one reads my sig line I feel it is a good response to the "fair" discussion.....

Considering the amount of fancy equipment now seen in competition, some readers have complained loudly that the 'average guy' does not have a chance. It might be pointed out that this average guy never has had a chance. Competition is held to determine what is best, not what is average. And if all the equipment were standardized, the man who won would still not be in any sense average.

Remember this came from Colonel Cooper himself.

[kurtm]

That is a "fair" assesment!

[Charles Bond]

At the risk of drifting here, I see alot about "fair" to other shooters here in relation to gear, but no-one seems to think an invisible target for some is UNFAIR. What Up??

As for the Legality of the cartride....It was a joke, to poke fun at my amigos Robbie and Daniel. Anyone who knows me, knows I have little use for the 77 page booklet ( no offence here) and if there are .30 cal ARs already, which there ARE, this would be NO DIFFERENT.

Kurt unless I missed something no one here has said that the yellow backers you advocate should not be placed behind steel targets at distance. (Back in the day I can assure you that if you had asked the SOF match to do this they would have observed they never observed an opposing force approaching outlined by yellow card board )

While I can raise that issue at the USPSA BOD meeting, that only addresses one match. You would be on your own for the rest of the matches since there is no uniform way these matches are administerd or even scored. I have heard you in the past ask us to advocate diversity match to match but there are consequences to that and not using the "booklet"..

And while you profess no love for the USPSA rules, they are complete and they are what everyone else bases their rules upon. Since the range staffs at all of the other matches are for the most part trained by USPSA, they default to those rules when the 2 page set of rules variations publishied by the match does not address the issue. Is this good? You bet becasue it beats the seat of the pants approach which may or may not apply one stage away.