intresting stuff on snipershide.com about this websight

usp_tactical_45 · Post by **usp_tactical_45** » Fri May 07, 2010 8:14 pm

http://snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads ... w=1#UNREAD

Post by **silencertalk** » Fri May 07, 2010 8:59 pm

Let me see. The military tested bullets for 300 WM. The Sierra 220 won. And one guy there says there is no need for the 220 and another guy with a Billy Idol avatar said I make stuff up.

I know what I said was controversial and open for debate but I am pretty sure the only counter-argument is that for closer-range and/or unknown distance shooting it is better to have a flatter trajectory. But I only said what was optimal for wind drift so that would not even disprove what I claimed.

CKOD · Post by **CKOD** » Fri May 07, 2010 9:18 pm

Your demands for facts and testing pisses people off when it goes again convention for them

And it seems like bolt action rifle guys are full of "convention" without proof thats just "common wisdom" for them

bikefreek · Post by **bikefreek** » Fri May 07, 2010 9:55 pm

CKOD wrote:Your demands for facts and testing pisses people off when it goes again convention for them And it seems like bolt action rifle guys are full of "convention" without proof thats just "common wisdom" for them

you mean convention like barrel break in, religeous barrel scrubbing, cold bore shot, and the occasional random flyer? Its interesting to see those things and more being systematically disproven by people that take the initiative to actually investigate these "conventions". Although in all fairness alot of those things are being disproven by people that post on the hide.

Selectedmarksman · Post by **Selectedmarksman** » Fri May 07, 2010 9:57 pm

More than any other sub-specialty in shooting, long-range/precision rifle shooting contains a lot of superstition and voodoo. It's hard to get any of them to let go of old ways.

Post by **silencertalk** » Fri May 07, 2010 10:02 pm

How about the ever popular 'shorter barrels are less accurate (I mean precise but others call it accurate) than longer barrels.'

Selectedmarksman · Post by **Selectedmarksman** » Fri May 07, 2010 10:04 pm

Now that you mention it, when I took my AR out to zero it, the RSO (retired marine) told me it would only be good for 50 yards. It's a 14.5" barrel with perm-attach QD mount. I'm not a great shot, so I don't know what a realistic operational range for it is.

goteron · Post by **goteron** » Fri May 07, 2010 10:08 pm

That's a cqb barrel, only good for contact distances. Anything over 15-20 yards and it's worthless.

I did have a guy tell me one time that .45s tumble end over end out f the barrel. Lots of wisdom out there luckily I know better now. They tumble after 6-8 inches.

bikefreek · Post by **bikefreek** » Fri May 07, 2010 10:10 pm

rsilvers wrote:How about the ever popular 'shorter barrels are less accurate (I mean precise but others call it accurate) than longer barrels.'

exactly common sense and logic dictate that the longer a barrel the greater chance of it having a negative effect on the bullets path. It almost has to be a throwback to iron sights where a longer sight radius helps with the shooters accuracy.

edit: spelling

Post by **silencertalk** » Fri May 07, 2010 10:23 pm

Yes, I bet it came about with sight radius. But you have to go back to WWII to escape optics being common. So I guess people repeat what their grand-pa pa told them.

2manygunz · Post by **2manygunz** » Fri May 07, 2010 10:31 pm

Had my Savage cut down to 18.5" at Tornado Tech. I got to talking with Mike about the shorter barrel myth and he said that he's doing mostly 16" barrels for police sniper squads these days. Particularly with a tighter twist, they are money out to at least 300yds -- plenty for domestic police situations. The 14.5" has got to be good for better than 20 yds!

And that Billy Idol guy appears to be, err, an "occasional random flier". The other guys seem to be engaged by the debate and offering some interesting counter points.

2manygunz · Post by **2manygunz** » Fri May 07, 2010 10:39 pm

Robert, from that thread, can you elaborate on your point about cal .260 crushing .308. That's news to me.

Post by **silencertalk** » Fri May 07, 2010 10:54 pm

.260 has the trajectory of 300 WM but less recoil than .308.

Raines/762-SD · Post by **Raines/762-SD** » Fri May 07, 2010 11:08 pm

rsilvers wrote:How about the ever popular 'shorter barrels are less accurate (I mean precise but others call it accurate) than longer barrels.'

Yeah I believe TacOps really broke that myth a long time ago with an 18" holding sub MOA at 1K.

doubloon · Post by **doubloon** » Fri May 07, 2010 11:33 pm

rsilvers wrote:How about the ever popular 'shorter barrels are less accurate (I mean precise but others call it accurate) than longer barrels.'

Well this is obviously true because it's much harder to hit a steel duck at 100 yards with my P229/.357Sig than it is with my 10/22.

continuity · Post by **continuity** » Fri May 07, 2010 11:44 pm

rsilvers wrote:.260 has the trajectory of 300 WM but less recoil than .308.

Not to be picky, but the standard (159-168 gr) 7.62 bullet weight will have improved/better terminal performance, than a 140 gr., 260.

JohnnyC · Post by **JohnnyC** » Sat May 08, 2010 12:14 am

viewtopic.php?t=6957

this you?

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Sat May 08, 2010 12:21 am

IMHO:

Sniper's hide is a great resource for long range shooting. But I tend to trust only the info of the Site Admin or mods, there are other guys that r great assest for info as well, u just need to know who.

2manygunz · Post by **2manygunz** » Sat May 08, 2010 7:32 am

continuity wrote:
rsilvers wrote:.260 has the trajectory of 300 WM but less recoil than .308.
Not to be picky, but the standard (159-168 gr) 7.62 bullet weight will have improved/better terminal performance, than a 140 gr., 260.

So by "terminal performance" are you saying 140/.260 will be more precise, but a 168/.308 will have more punch when it gets there? Or are you refuting the point about the advantages of flatter trajectory?

Regardless, I do not have a .260. Will have to look into it. It would take some getting used to, but sounds like a fun round.

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Sat May 08, 2010 7:35 am

You just have to have a good BS detector there. Their silencer section is particularly frustrating sometimes. A lot of people who have only ever owned or shot one suppressor, but by god, they recommend it as the best to everyone who asks, and will become hostile when you suggest that perhaps another company has made something better in the 7 years since they bought theirs.

Also a lot of barrel break-in fanatics there.

I do trust Lowlight's opinion though. The guy has the pedigree to understand the gear he reviews, and the balls to actually put stuff through challenging testing. I'm tired of reading scope reviews that focus on the finish and whether the glass is "bright" or not; Lowlight detonated two charges of Tannerite under a scope and then threw it off a tower to see if it would work after.

2manygunz · Post by **2manygunz** » Sat May 08, 2010 7:39 am

ArevaloSOCOM wrote:IMHO:

Sniper's hide is a great resource for long range shooting. But I tend to trust only the info of the Site Admin or mods, there are other guys that r great assest for info as well, u just need to know who.

True of most gatherings.

Don't worry about me, tho; you can always trust what I say. I pretty much know everything about everything. (Except .260 apparently...)

I enjoy sniperhide and find that I've gotten excellent info, provided I ask the right questions.

Davo5o · Post by **Davo5o** » Sat May 08, 2010 9:10 am

If you want to get real info from real snipers, not internet wannabees.

Then go here:

http://www.sniperinfo.com/forum/

These guys shoot 16" 308s to 1200yrds every day.

Question: What's the most important thing you can buy to make yourself a better sniper??

Answer: Training.

Crosshair · Post by **Crosshair** » Sat May 08, 2010 9:45 am

continuity wrote:Not to be picky, but the standard (159-168 gr) 7.62 bullet weight will have improved/better terminal performance, than a 140 gr., 260.

Terminal performance doesn't mean jack if you don't hit your target.

2manygunz · Post by **2manygunz** » Sat May 08, 2010 9:49 am

Crosshair wrote:
continuity wrote:Not to be picky, but the standard (159-168 gr) 7.62 bullet weight will have improved/better terminal performance, than a 140 gr., 260.
Terminal performance doesn't mean jack if you don't hit your target.

This. That's what I was asking above.

Sorry to keep on the .260, but I'm genuinely interested. After a little light investigation, seems factory .260 is on the spendy side. Anyone who shoots it know of a target/plinker grade of ammo, or reloaded stuff?

continuity · Post by **continuity** » Sat May 08, 2010 10:05 am

2manygunz wrote: So by "terminal performance" are you saying 140/.260 will be more precise, but a 168/.308 will have more punch when it gets there? Or are you refuting the point about the advantages of flatter trajectory?

The .308 will have more "punch" given the same velocities.

A lighter .260 bullet will have a flatter trajectory.