Military snipers and the 300 Win Magnum (Bullet weight?)
- Thread starter Steve1
- Start date
MK 248 MOD 1 is the ammo. Loaded with a 220 grain Sierra Match King going 2,850 fps. a 220 match king is a hollow point boat tail with a ballistic coefficient of 0.629
And to think that all these years, I figured a 180 grain bullet would shoot far flatter at long range! This is like finding out that there is no Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I need to get some heavier bullets.....
Look at the 208 AMAX. BC of .648 and you can easily get it going 100fps faster than that above stated load. Unless you are in the military and have to use their loads, don't get hung up with them as they are seldom the best.
And you will get very few reloads with the brass, because the military is running a very MAX load.
The military must use a different bullet in combat though. I think the Geneva Convention frowns on hollow points.
I've been asking a lot of stupid questions lately concerning ballistic coefficientcy in bullets. I'm going to have to try some heavier bullets. All these years I thought 150 or 180 grain loads would shoot the flattest of all (in thirty caliber). I've never shot at really long range enough to know that heavier bullets would be flatter shooting, way out there. I hope to have about a 700 yd. range soon, where I can test out some loads.
When I was in the military, 40 years ago, rarely did they use the best equipment. Now things seemed to be changing. The average foot soldier has gear that I can't even afford to buy. Everything from the best red dot scopes to night vision. I guess I was just curious what ammo military snipers use. I know they sometimes load their own in training, but I think in combat they shoot the match (full metal jacket) ammo they are given.....
I've got a friend who worked as a Seal Sniper in Iraq. I need to pick his brain next time I see him. I just don't know many people who have done a lot of really long range shooting. I need to do more reading.....That's why I enjoy these forums so much. Learning all this on your own would take forever. Thanks for your help....
I've been asking a lot of stupid questions lately concerning ballistic coefficientcy in bullets. I'm going to have to try some heavier bullets. All these years I thought 150 or 180 grain loads would shoot the flattest of all (in thirty caliber). I've never shot at really long range enough to know that heavier bullets would be flatter shooting, way out there. I hope to have about a 700 yd. range soon, where I can test out some loads.
When I was in the military, 40 years ago, rarely did they use the best equipment. Now things seemed to be changing. The average foot soldier has gear that I can't even afford to buy. Everything from the best red dot scopes to night vision. I guess I was just curious what ammo military snipers use. I know they sometimes load their own in training, but I think in combat they shoot the match (full metal jacket) ammo they are given.....
I've got a friend who worked as a Seal Sniper in Iraq. I need to pick his brain next time I see him. I just don't know many people who have done a lot of really long range shooting. I need to do more reading.....That's why I enjoy these forums so much. Learning all this on your own would take forever. Thanks for your help....
Last edited:
No, they are currently using 220gr SMKs, 175gr SMKs, and used 77gr SMKs(Idk currently) while I was deployed which was about 8 years ago. I haven't read the Geneva rules, but I think they were pointed more towards bullets designed to maim and SMKs aren't designed with a HP for that reason.
These are not true hollow points and are not subject to the Geneva Convention restriction.
They also use a 190gr bullet, the 220 load won't work in most rifles. We tested it and it's actual MV was 2950 and above. The lot I ran was 2970fps, and would not work in a custom GaP. Too hot.
They also use a 190gr bullet, the 220 load won't work in most rifles. We tested it and it's actual MV was 2950 and above. The lot I ran was 2970fps, and would not work in a custom GaP. Too hot.
The lighter bullets will actually shoot flatter at the shorter and mid-ranges, like 400 yds. However, the lighter/shorter bullets, due to their lower ballistic coefficient, lose speed faster and are likely to become subsonic (which can be unstable), at longer ranges, like 900-1,000 yds. The lighter bullets are more affected by the wind, though, even at shorter ranges. At 300 yds., 125-150 grain bullets may work fine; at 500 yds and beyond, such as in most F-class shooting, there will not be many people shooting well with 150 gr. bullets. Partly, that's because the best shooters use the heavier bullets with better ballistic coefficient; a good shooter might win a match at 600 yds. using 155 grain bullets, on a given day; but on average, an individual shooter will shoot the best average scores with the best bullet available (read: higher BC).
The Geneva convention prohibits expanding bullets. The current hollow-point bullets that are being used have been shown not to expand on impact, so they are OK. The FMJ bullets are less accurate than the hollow-points, for reasons of manufacturing precision, so the military's long-range accuracy rounds can now be loaded with more accurate bullets.
Jim
Jesus that is hot. I only get like 2830 or so with 210s. I honestly didn't think it was possible to go that fast with that bullet in a 300wm. Just when I thought I knew something about that caliber.
I always just assumed the military used some form of 175 gr. full metal jacketed 30 cal. projectile and not the actual 175 gr. SMK. I read posts where some people use Sierra SMKs for hunting. I don't hunt but was actually wondering if anyone has tested the penetration difference on steel plate (or other hard target) between various SMKs and comparable weight FMJ 30 cal. projectiles?
The Southwest 230 grain VLD is hot too . . . 2850 fps.
But, 2950 with a 220 is smokin'
300 Win Mag / 230gr Berger Hybrid - 20rd Box
BMT
But, 2950 with a 220 is smokin'
300 Win Mag / 230gr Berger Hybrid - 20rd Box
BMT
Here's some good info for you: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf
As far as SMK vs FMJ on mild steel you won't see much if any difference between the two(weight being close to the same or the same) based off my own test. When you aren't using some type of special/different style bullet(steel/steel core, LAP, AP, or SLAP) you will mostly find that speed kills steel. I've seen as good or better penetration from 5.56 55gr ammo as 147gr 7.62 ball.
Last edited:
As others have said there are plenty of "hallow points" or better known as "open tip match" projectiles in use. As far as the .300 WM goes you'll see 185/190/220 grains in common use. The issue with the 220 (at less as of 2012) was they are very hot loads and more than a few people were reporting heavy bolt lift or worse, not the ideal thing for combat. I personally much preferred the 190's as my rifle would push them to 3200 fps+ (based off of truing data) without too much pressure signs, though barrel life was rather short.
As far as terminal performance form everyone I’ve seen take a 190 center mass from 200-1500 meters seems to have had a life altering experience in regards to their current life style.
If you’re interested in shooting the .300 WM out and about take a good look at the 208 gr. AMAX it has a pretty good form factor and reasonable priced.
As far as terminal performance form everyone I’ve seen take a 190 center mass from 200-1500 meters seems to have had a life altering experience in regards to their current life style.
If you’re interested in shooting the .300 WM out and about take a good look at the 208 gr. AMAX it has a pretty good form factor and reasonable priced.
^^^^^Correct^^^^^. For all of you purists, it was not the Geneva Convention it is the 1899 Haig declaration prohibiting expanding bullets in warfare.
As Flight pointed out, the Geneva Convention had nothing to do with bullets.
The Hague Convention, however, prohibited the use of "dum dum" bullets. (From my recent Law Of Land Warfare course.)
The Hague Convention, however, prohibited the use of "dum dum" bullets. (From my recent Law Of Land Warfare course.)
When you get as old as I am, that is doing pretty good!
LanceS,
As long as we're being concise here, the Hague convention didn't outlaw the use of "dum dum" bullets, but expanding bullets designed to cause excessive injury or suffering. The original term comes from the Brits Dum Dum Arsenal in India, where they developed, and subsequently produced expanding jacketed bullets for the 303 Enfield. The term "dum dum" has since become synonymous with expanding bullets especially in the mainstream media. But, to be accurate, it only refers specifically to those expanding bullets produced at the Dum Dum Arsenal in the late 1890s.
Your call on whether your prof might give extra credit for the background here, or if it'd simply piss him off, but there ya go.
As long as we're being concise here, the Hague convention didn't outlaw the use of "dum dum" bullets, but expanding bullets designed to cause excessive injury or suffering. The original term comes from the Brits Dum Dum Arsenal in India, where they developed, and subsequently produced expanding jacketed bullets for the 303 Enfield. The term "dum dum" has since become synonymous with expanding bullets especially in the mainstream media. But, to be accurate, it only refers specifically to those expanding bullets produced at the Dum Dum Arsenal in the late 1890s.
Your call on whether your prof might give extra credit for the background here, or if it'd simply piss him off, but there ya go.
Similar threads
