I would suggest that you look at Fedorov's No5 cartridge. I think it might well give you the performance you are looking for.
Who are you addressing?I would suggest that you look at Fedorov's No5 cartridge. I think it might well give you the performance you are looking for.
By 1913, he submitted his first 6.5mm self-loading rifles for trials; these rifles fired new, rimless 6.5mm ammunition with case about 57mm (2”) long; pointed jacketed bullet weighed 8.5 gram (131 grain) and had a muzzle velocity of about 850 m/s (2790 fps)
140.4 gr (9 g) DK 2,854 ft/s (870 m/s) 2,540 ft·lbf (3,440 J)
I thought the M2 bullet was BT???
I thought NATO 762 was based on the WW2 30-06, of which the M2 bullet had a BT.If you mean the PD-42 version of the .276 cartridge then you know more than I do. I thought it was flat. Everyone seems to use G1 ballistics to model it, not G7. Do you mean the T2 version of .276?
Unlikely. That's just way too powerful.I would suggest that you look at Fedorov's No5 cartridge. I think it might well give you the performance you are looking for.
Not necessarily, it was roughly similar in performance to British .280 ammo:
By 1913, he submitted his first 6.5mm self-loading rifles for trials; these rifles fired new, rimless 6.5mm ammunition with case about 57mm (2”) long; pointed jacketed bullet weighed 8.5 gram (131 grain) and had a muzzle velocity of about 850 m/s (2790 fps)
Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
139 gr (9 g) Ball 2,545 ft/s (776 m/s) 1,980 ft·lbf (2,680 J)
140 gr (9 g) Ball
7 mm Mk 1Z 2,549 ft/s (777 m/s) 2,004 ft·lbf (2,717 J)
120 gr (8 g) Norma FMJBT 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s) 1,942 ft·lbf (2,633 J)
10.5 g (162 gr) RN 700 m/s (2,300 ft/s) 2,572 J (1,897 ft·lbf)
Not necessarily, it was roughly similar in performance to British .280 ammo
Seems you're fight, my numbers were off. Yeah, too powerful. Seems like he lucked out by having to use Japanese 6.5 for the Avtomat.No, Fedorov's ammo was more powerful than 6.5x55mm, into the 3,000 J range. It isn't the intermediate round you're looking for.
I mean, already with .280's 2,700 J range we have people arguing it is manipulation of definition to fit in something that shouldn't.
Before the ZH-29 was given to the US to test in July 1929, the .30 Garand was already killed. It was after the testing of ZH-29 that work on the (dropped) .30 gas-operated Garand was resumed, leading to T1E1 and the subsequent survival of development. In other words, without the ZH-29 which showed that you could make a sturdy functioning full caliber semiauto that weighed less than 10.5 pounds, the .30 Garand's development would never have been revived, and thus only the .276 Garand would have made it into the final selection.
Now that I bother to look up why I had that notion in my mind: It was based on this blog post.
I might have overreached in swallowing up a theory without any concrete evidence. Shameful of me.
The 6.5mm x 48mm sounds almost like what you'd get using the Italian Carcano ammo with a Spitzer-BT bullet.Well. The more things change the more they stay the same. And this blog post has a picture of an AR chambered for it- note the slightly longer magazine well.
You seem to be having fun reading the guy's posts.
You could have a fire break out at the Springfield Armory in early 1917, leading to the Army hastily adopting the M1891 Mosin Nagant rifles that Remington and Westinghouse were churning out by the millions, along with the 7.62x54R Russian cartridge...
You could have a fire break out at the Springfield Armory in early 1917, leading to the Army hastily adopting the M1891 Mosin Nagant rifles that Remington and Westinghouse were churning out by the millions, along with the 7.62x54R Russian cartridge...