/k/ - Weapons

>>518764

because it's been blow out of proportion as some kind of universal round because the industry fetishized 6mm so they could start another marketing trend to make more money. The Mememoor was explicitly designed as a plinking round for rich people, nothing more.

It is in no way superior to common magnums, unless you're allergic to recoil, but there's guys on here who meme 7mm-08 as being more powerful, flatter shooting, and faster than a 300 win mag using comparable ammo lmao.

>260

Just get a 7mm rem mag

>>518764

Because .270 Winchester exists.

>>518768

Except 7mm-08 is an objectively superior round to .308 and does give similar ballistics to 300 win mag. It's also got the best brass availability of the 7mm cartridges- just neck down a .308.

>>518764

I think it is the price and most people won't use it for long range competition. Why bother with 6.5 CM if .308 works for you and you don't do longer distance shooting? I am just getting into long range shooting and so I went with 6.5 CM but also got a .308 upper for the ar10. I don't know that much about guns so I could be just really misinformed but this is what I understand in regards to your question.

>>518848

I just wish 7.5 Swiss or 7mm rem mag would fit in standard ar-10 uppers.

I want a Gov Profile a2 with iron sights, as well as ar-10 in 308. It's just that I would want a 3rd rifle in something with longer range capabilities down the road. 6.5 CM just seems like an alright middle ground.

It's the hip and tacticool version of .270 Winchester.

>>518819

>Ballistics

A comparably loaded 7mm magnum can come close to the 300. So you're saying the same bullet but with substantially less powder is doing better than both?

You're wrong, of course.

>>518901

It beats the shit out of .308 on equal weights because it has a similar arc as 300WM.

300WM allows you to drive a significantly heavier slug at faster speeds at something like treble the recoil force and a heavier rifle, and something like 4x the cost when reloaded.

No, it's not doing better ballistically than 300WM, but better bc at the same weight and speed mean it has an edge over .308.

>>518937

Pick your load. I was able to find a 200 grainer 300WM that actually shoots less flat than a 7mm, that being the trophy bonded bear claw.

>>518961

it's only meaningful if you use comparable loadings. Otherwise we're arguing about bullets.

>>518963

Not quite, sorry to be an asshat but the thing I said was "7mm can shoot to 300 win mag specs".

I'm arguing purely on the arc they cut, there's no doubt 300WM will fucking floor anything it hits a lot harder than the 08.

I suppose some critera for discovery should be set out.

>Must be within 5 inches of each other at 1000 yards

>Must have an equal BC

>Must have <100 fps muzzle velocity

>Must be considered a full power load, within 10% of maximum cartridge psi rating

>Due to matching BC and speed, weight is irrelevant

Btw, iirc these are what is needed for when you're matching coaxial machine guns with shells on tanks. I was that guy some months back who made a ballistic equivalent reloading thread

If we can match all of the above, we may say that a cartridge mimics the trajectory of another (terminal ballistics notwithstanding). From memory, it's quite possible to even match trajectory with dissimilar BC, lower on the smaller cartridge but higher velocity to produce a mimic given bc is within .1 of each other.

>>518997

Could you get the performance of 7.5 swiss or 7mm rem mag out of a WSSM sized cartridge?

>>519076

Did you mean WSM? The WSSM cartridges are not going to have enough capacity as the cases are only 1.670 inches long. 7mm WSM is just slightly less then 7mm remington magnum.

If you have the ability to create a wildcat cartridge you may be able to create a wssm that reaches 7.5mm swiss but not 7mm remington mag.