Question !

[lord dolf vader]

" kinda like a weak 308 round "

that is exactly what it is. cept for .005 caliber difference in size.

308 is just 30-06 updated for stronger case in mechanical rifles.

30-06 was designed for bolt actions

[hyena426]

30.06<~~way more powerfull that 308,,,my 30.06 will trash my 308 at all ranges,,,they used the 30.06 in the 30cal beltfeed machine guns too,,not just bolt,,did just great<~~and you can still buy them for about 1800 bucks usa,,vented barrels and bypod,lol,,,and lets not forget the m1grand too<~~simi too,,only reason they went to the 308 instead of the 30.06,,was because of controllability<~~you ever try to rock and roll a simi auto 30.06?it will kick the crap out of you,,lol,,now a 308 little more controllable with the ablitly to still reach out and hit its targets with accuracy,,and you can rock and roll the trigger with out ending up shooting the moon

[Sakai]

Originally posted by hyena426
i know when you look at 303 you see why its so weak and hard to knock planes down with it,,,its not a big round,,and the powder behind it is pathedic,,,i had a british 303,,,and still got a box of shells for it<~got rid of the poor thing,,lol,,,,i see the round having a hard time taking down a deer at 500 yards,,let alone a armored air plane

the 303 was out dated by the time the war started,,and should of been updated

Not entirely accurate.

The problem you might have been having is that the British .303 was loaded to commercial hunting limits for your use.  The military rounds are more potent and the heavy bullets of the .303 shot down many AC (and killed hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers).  In the BOB it was .303 armed AC that chewed up the Germans; note that the Hurricane--armed only with .303s shot down the majority of the Bombers.  

Yes, the .308 and 30-06 are more powerful, but you can load a .303 to about equal a .308 and it will surpass the Krag round in my experience.  

As the guard at the Veda Grande drift and leaching site near Patagonia, one of my weapons was an enfield .303 and 1,000 incendiary rounds.  I presighted the rifle along the road to and from the mine and I could hit a human-sized pile of rocks eight for ten from 200-500 yards with that ammo/rifle combo.  Any vehicle trying to escape after a theft would have been perforated.  

Deer taken at 500 yards are few and far between my friend--very few and very far between.  You must have had a scope on your Enfield because at 150 yards the front sight covers a deer completely.  Guys say "oh, I killed it at 400 yards" but you find the hit point at 200 (or 100 often) and the dead animal at 250 routinely on "long" shots.  Deer here in the south are usually killed inside 150.  In the west where I was raised you had longer shots often, but I bet half or more Mule Deer were still killed inside 150.  

I would agree entirely that the .308 and '06 are superior rounds for all around hunting use, but the .303 will kill any deer in America out to the ranges that the average guy can shoot consistently.  Any deer dead if you can shoot and I would not feel undergunned shooting Moose and Elk with one with heavy loads in timber or willows.  Shooting loads at industry pressures with 180-220 grain RN loads will kill your trajectory but they are devastating on flesh if they are decent projectiles.  Have someone load some 150-165 Boattails for you and see what you can do with it.  Give them the rifle and let them work the load up.  They are terrific guns and I am looking for a couple pristine examples to have for plinking.

I hear exactly the same song and dance re the 7mm and 8mm Mauser loads (euro desig. 7x57 and 8x57).  Commercial loaders won't load hot rounds for those due to the age of the guns but european 8x57 rounds equal the 30-06, the Norma 7x57 loads are sweet.  Hornady, I believe, makes or made a 7x57 "Light Magnum" or "hotter" load.  Winchester used to load the 7x57 139 BTHP at high velocities but stopped due to litigation fears (someone might drop on in a Mexican Remington Rolling block and blow they little face off).  

Sakai

[brady]

Saki, reading that brought back lots of memories. When I was a tenager and into my mid 20's I lived in the country, and Loaded my own rounds for several rifels the Family had, but my two rifiels were a remington model 700 heavy barel Varmet rifel 223(5,56) and a 243 Mohawk . I used to grab a bag of chips and my field glass and put the walkman on and snip squirels out of the Filber orchards after school. I used Surpluss brass and speer hollow point bullets with a consiverative load to maxamise stabality, I could hit squirels at 400 yards. Iwas shoting them out of an orchard whos treas were all 25 feet apart so gauging the range was prety easy and I simply dialed it into the dial a range on the 4X12 scope. I used to laugh at my buddies stories about dear hunting and how had they were to hit at 200 yards and what a great shoot they were for doing it. As far as I was concerned the bigest problem in dear hunting was finding the target, if you couldent hit somthing that big you neaded more practice.

 Somthing taht always baffeld me was that the 223 rounds (the hollow points, which had no lead in them) would explode on impact with anything, while the same round for the 243 would almost always pass through a squirel withougt "detinating", I figured the mass of the bullet was more and that squirel was not enoght to cause it to come apart. So I would try and shoot under them or at a brach if the were siting on one, other wise they might be wounded.

 Reloading and hunting were great fun, hopefully I will get back to it some day.

[hyena426]

the problem with a 303 is the lack of powder,,,and the enfield we had was a ladder sites model,,,a enfield is a funny gun to target,,sure if you get use to how it shoots,,you could pull of fantastic shots,,but!! when your out targeting it,,you will notice 3 things,,,,at 100 yards,the gun will hit 2 inch high,,,,at 300 yards it will hit about inch low on target,,,at 550 yards,,it will hit allmost 3 inch lower,,,my 30.40 krag will hit about a inch lower at 550 yards,,the 308 will drop about the same,,little less than a inch,,a 30.40 kreig is little bigger than a 308,,and smaller than a 30.06,,but it has bigger round than 308,,so the extra powder goes into the round,, nato in 1957 changed its rounds over to the 308,,because it was closer to the power and preformance of a 30.40 krag and 30.06<~~which know one can dout,,are some of the best all around hunting rifles made

but if you read about 303,,not many people are impressed with it<~~i know i wasnt,,,i sold mine,,good gun for a teenager tring to start out into higher power rifles,,even the high powerd model of it wasnt any good,,,it still travled much slower than a 30.06,,and it didnt have the power,,and the bullet would tumble,,the 303 cassing is its flaw,, its too small!! it needs more powder,,and then you run into bullet design problems,,tring to push a bullet faster than it can with such a small bullet cassing,,the rounds got kills,,heck the 22 cal bullet has killed more people than anything else<~~doesnt mean its that great of a bullet,just cheaper and more used

the british didnt like it much ethere,,but!! they had no choice,,because the british wasnt going to retool all there guns,,just to get a little more accuracy and power,,lol<~~they kept the same round from 1890's till 1950's,,,im not saying it didnt get any kills,,and im sure with 8 of them in a hurricain it did get some kills,, because its all they had!! and they had no choice but too try and take bombers down with it,,it was do or die for them,,,but in all,,the 303 is not a bad round,,,its just unstable and out dated,,but because of politics is the only reason it stayed around long as it did in military service

and yes at 500yards its hard to hit a deer,,but it can be done,,and with a scope and this desart were i live,,its a good chance your going to make a shot like that out here,,,a 303 is a good round,,it just has design problems,,that make it fly funny and not as predictable as a 30.40krag or 308 or 30.06 at long ranges

[F4UDOA]

Brady,

Why do you think the Bearcat was a throw back?

Only the early prototypes were 4 * .50 cal.

The production models were all 20Mil I believe. I know after a short run almost all F4U-4 were 20Mill. The first several hundred off the line .50 cal.

I have the serial numbers somewhere.

Also the F2G had an array of 4 .50cal and 6 .50cal. Had it gone to full production I'm sure it would have been 20mill.

[F4UDOA]

Bearcat DataHistory: The Bearcat was the last of Grumman's piston-engined carrier-based fighters. Two XF8F-1 prototypes were ordered in November 1943, and the first of these was flown on 21 August 1944. Grumman decided once again to utilize the most powerful engine available at the time, the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp -- the same engine that had powered both their Hellcat and Tigercat designs. This time, the engine was fitted to the smallest, lightest airframe that could be built. This resulted in a highly maneuverable, fast airplane with a rate of climb 30% greater than the Hellcat.

Production of the F8F-1 began just six months after the first flight of the prototype, and the first airplane was delivered to the US Navy's VF-19 squadron on 21 May 1945. The Navy's order totaled 2,033 airplanes, and Grumman contracted with General Motors to build the Bearcat under license, with the designation F8FM-1. Only a few Bearcats had been delivered to the Navy when the end of the war halted production. Grumman cancelled 1,258 of its Bearcats, and General Motors cancelled its entire order of 1,876. Production resumed after the war, and several variants were produced, including the F8F-1B, with four 20mm cannon in place of the previously-fitted 12.7mm (0.5 inch) machine guns; several night fighter variants (F8F-1N and F8F-2N); and a photo-reconnaissance version (F8F-2P). Production continued until May 1949.

At least 24 US Navy squadrons flew the Bearcat, some until as late as 1952, after which some were sold to the French Armee de l'Air for combat operations in Indo-China. Another 129 Bearcats were sold to the Thai Air Force.

Nicknames: Beercat (Armee de l'Air)

Specifications (F8F-1B):
    Engine: 2,100hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W Double Wasp 18-cylinder radial piston engine
    Weight: Empty 7,070 lbs., Max Takeoff 12,947 lbs.
    Wing Span: 35ft. 10in.
    Length: 28ft. 3in.
    Height: 13ft. 10in.
    Performance:
        Maximum Speed at 19,700ft: 421mph
        Cruising Speed: 163mph
        Initial Climb Rate: 4570 feet per minute
        Ceiling: 38,700ft
        Range: 1,105 miles
    Armament:
        Four 20mm cannon
        Hardpoints for two 1,000lb bombs, or four 127mm (0.5in) rockets, or two 150-gal fuel tanks

Number Built: 1,266

Number Still Airworthy: 10

[brady]

F4UDOA, I dont( I thought they were all armed with 50cal's, the Bearcats), it was a question, my knowledge of post war planes, even those models of planes that were in service During the war that came into service after WW2 is limited, I realy dont Study Cold war anything much at all, you might say I have a working or general knowledge of that time but thats it, thats why I asked.

 Ty for posting that info very informative.

 

[Sakai]

Originally posted by brady
Saki, reading that brought back lots of memories.

 Somthing taht always baffeld me was that the 223 rounds (the hollow points, which had no lead in them) would explode on impact with anything, while the same round for the 243 would almost always pass through a squirel withougt "detinating", I figured the mass of the bullet was more and that squirel was not enoght to cause it to come apart. So I would try and shoot under them or at a brach if the were siting on one, other wise they might be wounded.

 Reloading and hunting were great fun, hopefully I will get back to it some day.

Ah yes Brady, varminting!

I agree, varminting is great fun.  I have shot many hundreds of ground squirrels, jackrabbits, rock chucks, etc.  

Two different things though, hunting Deer is more nerve wracking and the excitement to get a trophy is powerful on guys so they do overestimate tehir ranges often and they always "work up" the story.  I would agree that varminting really sharpens those skills you described and guys who can varmint can nail deer more consistently at long ranges.  There are folks who specialize in "varmint style" deer rigs.  They soup up 7mm to .338 brass of various designs, layout heavy, varmint style rifles with special barrels, custom stocks, honed triggers, special scopes, etc. and try for long range shots only.  

Biggest difference is with deer, you want to kill it so placement is the key.  With a varmint hit with the explosive force of the hyper fragile .224 loads, you hit it anywhere and it is a kill.  Even close misses can kil small varmints when te exploding projectile  kills them like flak (I have taken chukar this way using 165 grain sierra BTSP and shooting a rock near teh bird to "flak" it).  

I don't understand why the .243 did not have the same effect, what weight and style projectile were you loading?  I would have thought teh 80 grain hollowpoints very frangible.

Sakai

[Sakai]

Originally posted by hyena426
the problem with a 303 is the lack of powder,,,

a 30.40 kreig is little bigger than a 308,,and smaller than a 30.06,,but it has bigger round than 308,,so the extra powder goes into the round,,

 good round,,it just has design problems,,that make it fly funny and not as predictable as a 30.40krag or 308 or 30.06 at long ranges

Well, if I might . . .

First, the 30-40 krag is a .308 diameter round so you can load lighter bullets in it and increase your velocity somewhat with the extra powder capacity.  The .308 actually holds more powder and is a more efficient design than the Krag so can be loaded "hotter" (also due in no small part to all arms firing it being modern).  Also, if you are loading military or commercial brass you can have some differences (see:  http://www3.sympatico.ca/shooters/oddsnends.htm  --see also his reloading data for the .303).

If you check this guys reloading data you will see that the .303 can be driven to about the same as the Krag can be loaded up to:  about 2300 FPS for a 180 grain bullet.  (see:  http://www.chuckhawks.com/30-40krag.htm).

If you go to the Remington Ballistics page, you will see that the .303 is actually loaded a little hotter than is the 30-40 krag (see: http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/ballistics.htm) with the 180 doing almost 2500 at the muzzle.

The Krag was loaded originally with 220 grain rn bullets.  These are sure killers at close range on every deer in the North Americas--even elk and moose--but they lose velocity and energy rapidly so are poor long range loads.  

What type of Krag do you have?  Do you have a US Army Krag-Jorgensen?  If so, reload carefully because that rifle only has one locking lug.  If it isd a single shot, you likely could load or have someone load a hotter roound for you.  If you have a Browning Model 95, you don't need that send it to me.

Anyways, as noted, the powder capacity is about the same for the two case, the edge going to the .303 British.  Your .308 shoots a 180 grain SP at about 200-250 FPS faster at the muzzle, but the real problem lies in the design and relative sectional density (SD) of the rounds.  If you get another .303, have some one load PSP bullets for it if you want to use it at long ranges, but if you are hunting in close, the 180 or even 215 grain RNSP loads are wonderful for hunting.

The whole "design problems that make it fly funny" is an old story applied to several types of military rifle.  This has to do with keyholing of rounds on impact--not flight, an effect that is devastating to the target animal/person.  Essentially the bullet "tumbles" or goes erratically through the tissue to exit or impact at odd angles creating horrific wounds.  Not all loads/rifles do this but during WWI or before the US Springfield had a 150 grain (I think it was) flat point load that did this and it was a sure killer.  TR used it on Cape Buffalo!  He reported the tendency to keyhole made the rifle a sure killer (I would guess he was shooting an 03A3 springfield).

Incidentally, the US Vietnam Experience early on with the M-16, the high velocity of the M-16 at close ranges caused some wounds that looked suspiciously like keyholing and much mythology about American "tumbling bulltes" and their deadly effect was spread.

Most nations after WWI corrected this by manufacturing more stable designs and today, most military loads for the US are Boattails as this stabilizes the bullet through the target.

Anyway, keyholing happens at the target, not in flight.  Any old ammo that was that erratic in the past cannot be compared to commercial softpoints and if you shoot say Remington ammo in a .303 that will not occur in flight, or at target.

Sakai

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Sakai
The whole "design problems that make it fly funny" is an old story applied to several types of military rifle.  This has to do with keyholing of rounds on impact--not flight, an effect that is devastating to the target animal/person.  Essentially the bullet "tumbles" or goes erratically through the tissue to exit or impact at odd angles creating horrific wounds.  Not all loads/rifles do this but during WWI or before the US Springfield had a 150 grain (I think it was) flat point load that did this and it was a sure killer.  TR used it on Cape Buffalo!  He reported the tendency to keyhole made the rifle a sure killer (I would guess he was shooting an 03A3 springfield).

Incidentally, the US Vietnam Experience early on with the M-16, the high velocity of the M-16 at close ranges caused some wounds that looked suspiciously like keyholing and much mythology about American "tumbling bulltes" and their deadly effect was spread.

Most nations after WWI corrected this by manufacturing more stable designs and today, most military loads for the US are Boattails as this stabilizes the bullet through the target.

Anyway, keyholing happens at the target, not in flight.  Any old ammo that was that erratic in the past cannot be compared to commercial softpoints and if you shoot say Remington ammo in a .303 that will not occur in flight, or at target.

Barring distortion or fragmentation of the projectile, all bullets tumble on impact. For more information, I refer you to "Bullet Fragmentation: A Major Cause of Tissue Disruption", by M. L. Fackler, J. S. Surinchak, J. A. Malinowski, and R. E. Bowen, all of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research, published in the January 1984 issue of the Journal of Trauma. Other useful references include other papers on the subject by Dr. Fackler, including "The Wounding Potential of the AK-74 Assault Rifle", also in Journal of Trauma, "Wound ballistics. A review of common misconceptions", published in the May 1988 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, "A reconsideration of the wounding mechanism of very high velocity projectiles -- importance of projectile shape", with R. F. Bellamy and J. A. Malinowski, published in the January 1988 issue of Journal of Trauma, and "Ballistic Injury", published in the December1986 issue of Annals of Emergency Medicine, and similar articles by other researchers, such as "The Relationship Between Mechanisms of Wounding and Principles of Treatment of Missile Wounds", by J. A. Mendelson, published in the September 1991 issue of the Journal of Trauma.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Shiva
Barring distortion or fragmentation of the projectile, all bullets tumble on impact. For more information, I refer you to "Bullet Fragmentation: A Major Cause of Tissue Disruption", by M. L. Fackler, J. S. Surinchak, J. A. Malinowski, and R. E. Bowen, all of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research, published in the January 1984 issue of the Journal of Trauma. Other useful references include other papers on the subject by Dr. Fackler, including "The Wounding Potential of the AK-74 Assault Rifle", also in Journal of Trauma, "Wound ballistics. A review of common misconceptions", published in the May 1988 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, "A reconsideration of the wounding mechanism of very high velocity projectiles -- importance of projectile shape", with R. F. Bellamy and J. A. Malinowski, published in the January 1988 issue of Journal of Trauma, and "Ballistic Injury", published in the December1986 issue of Annals of Emergency Medicine, and similar articles by other researchers, such as "The Relationship Between Mechanisms of Wounding and Principles of Treatment of Missile Wounds", by J. A. Mendelson, published in the September 1991 issue of the Journal of Trauma.

I think you are confusing two issues.

The tumbling is a specific effect called "keyholing".  What is being described in those journals is normal projectile behavior in tissue.  The mediums being what they are, obviously you have odd wound channels, bones or differences in tissue density can deflect the bullet to cause a new path (yes, no bullet follows a pure path through tissue but that is not keyholing).  I suspect that pistol bullets--due to their poor SD and flat bases--jive off erratically, I know .22s do--but keyholing is not the dipping off course or fragmenting of the jacket, but rather the violent corkscrewing sideways action accompanied by immediate loss of energy inside the target and horrific destruction.  Again, it is a specific effect.  Not all wounds are "keyhole" wounds.

Some high velocity wounds have been ascribed to keyholing when in fact they were simply pressure ruptures of the tissue, a ghastly effect of the kinetics involved, like sides split out loosing bowls from M-16 fire.  Shooting smallish targets with high velocity softpoints, varmint hunting, often provides grisly explosive effects due to the rapid dispersal of the energy through the target and the frangible qualities of the projectile.  These are not in any way, shape, or form, keyhole wounds.  Thus to say all are keyhole is errant.  

Keyholing and minor tumbling or going off course is not the same phenomenon.  Keyholing has always been described as being rather different in its effect and some bullets were far more unstable and prone to same, like the aforementioned 150 grain 30-06 ammo, which I doubt is described in those journals or is it?

You also see "keyhole wounds" on stable bullets when animals/people are shot through the brush so that the deflected round smashes sideways into the flesh.  

High-velocity rounds with lighter projectiles have the biggest issues with keyholing/and with other types of tissue destruction.  Because most modern bullets are designed with this behavior--instability--in mind, most do not keyhole.  That is why modern medicine does not see so many "keyhole" wounds.  I can say that it is highly unlikely that TR would have had any success on Buffalo had the 30-06 he was using--an extremely light weapon for them--not had something "special" going for it.  The average Buff rifle starts at .375 H&H, with some PHs suggesting that the .416s be the minimum provided a client can handle them.  

Sakai

[brady]

I cant be Shure Saki, it was about 10 years ago, I have all the Stuff but it is in storage curently, All I can recall with certanity is that they were speer bullets, hollo point, and had no lead in them the prodjectile was empty, they were very light rounds, consaquently they could be easly overloaded with powder, so in the case of using them more powder was defentaly not better. The bullets for the 243 and the 234 I refer to were the same designe. I used to Try and Frag the 243 rounds like u desctibe above. I did Dear Hunt on ocashion as well, I used the 243 for brush hunting since the Mowhak is a short barled short range type of rifle, I would load "dear Rounds" for the 223 for long range Hunting.

[devious]

Well, all rounds tend to tumble as the center of gravity is to the back of their middle - even in flight on extreme range. They rotate, swinging the COG around.

Wound profiles are another matter though. By going supersonic, the bullet produces a temporary cavity inside the body it enters (it
`s composed mainly of water, note the ripples and splash a stone creates when you throw it in water).

If the round goes fast enough to exceed it`s structural limit while the temporary cavity is still open, like the german-manufactured 7.62 NATO (which has a -maybe purposefully- thin metal jacket compared to other 7.62x51 NATO rounds)  or a 5.56 M16 or G36 round, it`ll fragment in the body to tea up the temporary cavity, creating MASSIVE bleeding and tissue damage.

Otherwise, it just leaves a canal varying in diameter between the calibre and the length of the bullet.

That`s why the M4 is a horrible weapon IMO - the reduced barrel length makes the round slower than the M16`s (950 m/s on the M16 as compared to ca. 820 on the M4) - so the M4 bullet is likely to just produce a 5.56 puncture at longer ranges as opposed to tearing up a football-sized cavity like the M16.

Note this holds for FMJ ammo - Hollow Points will mushroom passing through the body, creating a bigger tunnel and transferring more energ to the target.

Must dig up some good links for you there....

[Montezuma]

Perhaps Kamikazes had something to do with the U.S. Navy adopting 20 MMs before the Army did.