how gun rag writers rewrite history
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: how gun rag writers rewrite history

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,117

    Default how gun rag writers rewrite history

    i have a thread on here about modern sniper rifles, and in it i mention
    mk248 mod1 300 win mag ammo.
    the current american rifleman has an article on the ammo.
    i saw two glaring errors in the article.
    ONE)
    the author "claims" the mil decided a 300 win mag can closely match a 338 lapua mag.
    sorry not only is that way wrong, it is NOT what the mil said. what the mil said was that nothing could touch
    the accuracy /distance of the 338lm, but that there was no way to get funds to replace all 300's with 338s.
    so, they decided to hot rod the 300 win mag. BIG DIFFERENCE
    TWO)
    he never mentions the actual operating pressure of the new hot rod'd 300 win mag load. the mk248 mod1 load
    is a 220 smk loaded to 3.500"(vs std 3.340) and 68200 psi( up from the 64/65kpsi of std 300 wm). he then goes on to say
    you can get close with a 3.34 oal. sorry 2650FPS is not close to 2850FPS. i think(my opinion) is that by not listing the higher operating
    pressure he leads people to believe you can get there SAFELY...you cannot. oh and the mil does not reload, if a case ejects they are happy.
    he mentions using winchester brass in his tests, it will not last at loads close
    to the mk248mod1. been there done that.

    i clearly noted on my post "do not try this at home".

    i only posted here because this is sniper ammo.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,542

    Default

    I read the article and I agree, they blew the facts up to make the 300 WM to equal the 338LM. Their own testing before adapting the M2010 showed 300wm was clearly inferior.to 338LM. The big deal is that 338 is expensive and not in the normal supply chain. When the selected the 300WM and the M2010 they had data showing the superiority of the 338LM in accuracy and range. They wanted to keep the 300WM for cost and ?? politics, not to mention rifles in inventory in 300WM.

    Loading the 220 SMK with match components and to iffy pressures and OALs is not the right approach to equal the 338LM IMO.

    That said, the new load is about as good as you can get with the inferior platform. It will not blow up the rifles, just do not use it in a rifle that is not a US Rem. 700 like the M2010 or it may bite you and your rifle in the butt bone.

    A well loaded 338LM will beat the best loaded 300WM IMO. The data is out there. The standard quoted for accuracy was impressive(in bad way), essentially 1.5 MOA for the rifle and ammo at about any range. When tested the 338LM was testing at 0.6 MOA and the 300WM at 0.8. They were behind the curve from the get go. Range difference was profound but I can recall the exact number, more like 1800 meters for the 338 and 1200 for the 300 WM(before the new load 348 or whatever they call it).

    What is more impressive to me, in my thinking, is that the Russian accuracy standard for Extra Match ammo is better than the US standard for the new 220 grain load. Out to 800-1000 meters the comparison of the two is comparable, in fact slightly better for the Russian load than the new US load. A 75 year old 9lb sniper can shoot as well as the new high tech 16ish lb US M21010. How far have we come?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,117

    Default

    lets just say the mil accuracy requirements
    and true hand loaded match ammo ain't the same at all.
    i think my current load is at .6/.7"
    26.5" instead of the "new" 24"
    they went from 2950 to 2850 with the shorter bbl.
    both are +/- 50.
    just pure bs from 99% of so called gun writers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •