.

Nononsense, ,,,,,,,,

Would you have any info as to why the army settled on the 190 gr bullet for the .300 Win. Mag. as opposed to the 180 gr. ,,,,,,, curious as to the criteria envolved.

Comments

  • Ricci.WrightRicci.Wright Member Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭✭
  • Ricci.WrightRicci.Wright Member Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭✭
    The U.S. government purchased MK 248 MOD 1 .300 Winchester Magnum match-grade ammunition in 2009 for use in adapted M24 Sniper Weapon Systems and other .300 Winchester Magnum sniper rifles like the U.S. Navy Mk.13s. This ammunition was developed as a .300 Winchester Magnum Match Product Improvement (PIP) and uses the 220 gr (14.26 g) Sierra MatchKing Hollow Point Boat Tail (HPBT) very-low-drag bullet fired at a nominal muzzle velocity of 2,850 ft/s plus or minus 50 ft/s (869 m/s ± 15.2 m/s). According to the U.S. Navy this ammunition should increase the maximum effective range of .300 Winchester Magnum sniper rifle systems to 1,500 yards (1,370 m), decrease wind deflection on bullets in flight and use Hogdon H1000, a reduced muzzle flash propellant that remains temperature stable across an operational temperature range of −25 °F to +165 °F (−32 °C to 74 °C
  • Ricci.WrightRicci.Wright Member Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭✭
    Hey Forge, I think this might be what you are looking for.
    https://www.snipercentral.com/history-300wm-sniping/
  • forgemonkeyforgemonkey Member Posts: 20,319 ✭✭✭
    Ricci,,,,,,this is what I’m speaking of re the above article(s);
    ‘Mk248Mod0 (A191) = 190gr Sierra Match King at 2900fps‘
    Thanks ,,,,,,
  • Ricci.WrightRicci.Wright Member Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭✭
    Are you building a .300 WM 1911??  :'(
  • forgemonkeyforgemonkey Member Posts: 20,319 ✭✭✭
    Are you building a .300 WM 1911??  :'(
     ;) ,,,,No, but I'm planning to shoot the Mk248Mod0 (A191) = 190gr Sierra Match King at 2900fps in my rifle.
  • nononsensenononsense Member, Moderator Posts: 10,575 ******
    Sorry about the delay but a design/programming project kept me up until 3am and now I've been trying to finish it up for the last few hours. But I need a break...
    Would you have any info as to why the army settled on the 190 gr bullet for the .300 Win. Mag. as opposed to the 180 gr. ,,,,,,, curious as to the criteria envolved.
    Actually, it was the Army and the Navy in a combined effort to improve their longer range cartridge/bullet combination.

    The linked articles above are interesting if only from the most simplistic viewpoint. Incredibly huge amounts of highly technical information is crunched down into pablum-style answers. But that's what the majority demands.

    Yours is a simple answer even after all the data is manipulated for what really boils down to a budgetary answer.
    Better Ballistics.
    Always bear in mind the time frames as applied to every stage of development since bullet development was coming on slowly. The then current 180 gr. choice of bullets was woefully under serving the needs of the military with regard to longer range targets. But Sierra had the hearts and minds of the upper echelon commanders who were responsible for such decisions so Sierra was their answer.

    The changes which brought about the questioning at first were predicated on the change in battle tactics from relatively close to relatively far. This evolution was an immediate demonstration of the failing of an old design for bullets. So the Army and Navy started the process to find the replacement. End result, the A191 (abbreviated term) with a ballistically superior bullet and chamber changes which allowed for increased performance but with commensurate increases in pressure and cartridge length. This also provided for separation between the civilian version of the .300 WM and the new A191.

    As contact distance increased so did the change in ammunition. We are now the beneficiaries of several cartridge being used by the military with ballistically superior bullets, propellants and case designs. Unfortunately, this did not bode well for the A191.

    The A191 is still a fan favorite due to it's ease of reloading and general performance characteristics. It is a good, solid performer without the bludgeoning effects of much heavier bullets.

    Best.
  • nononsensenononsense Member, Moderator Posts: 10,575 ******
    As an aside, to keep the length of the previous down, I wanted to add some of the current findings for the .300 WM.

    If the pursuit of the A191 is for purposes of nostalgia, excellent! Just be aware of the leade and throat dimensions when reloading.

    If you're in real pursuit of superior ballistics, I suggest looking at the 215 grain Berger VLD Hybrid as the best response. This is the maximum weight/length increase which achieves improved ballistics without compromising drop and drift.

    The importance of the .338 Lapua is diminishing on a daily basis with the design and release of of better cartridges with the availability of high quality American brass.
    .300 Norma Mag.
    .338 Norma Mag.
    .375/408 CheyTac
    .416 Barrett
    It is the civilian population of shooters who is pushing the boundaries of ELR before the military sees the need.

    Best.



  • forgemonkeyforgemonkey Member Posts: 20,319 ✭✭✭
    edited August 5
    Thank you, Sir,,,,,,,, I’m anxious to try the military loading on bear this Sept. 
    I was unaware the military could use hollow point ammo.
  • nononsensenononsense Member, Moderator Posts: 10,575 ******
    It's all in the definitions. Larger diameter HP with skiving on the inside of the cup, the bullet can be considered the same as a soft point. Smaller than a certain diameter without the skiving, it's legal for the military.

    Best.

Sign In or Register to comment.