picketpin":1rwwbb1y said:There is very very little new in the reloading/cartridge world.
You have done a lot of research and thinking and I appaud that.
A couple of "comments":
Ergonomic: (def) Especially refering to the work place, designed to provide optimum comfort and avoid stress or injury. I'm not sure of your intened use of the word when it comes to cartridge design???
Why such a long neck on your design? Once you have at least one caliber of length you usually have sufficient bullet grip, especially with a military bullet with a cannlure. You could cut the neck length in half and increase the case capacity significantly.
If I were going to use a 6mm as quick look shows that the .224 Weatherby necked to .243 as is will drive a 100 grain 6mm to 3000 fps.
That's without the modern ball powders or any other newer powders since the 50s.
The case has some issues but none that can't be solved. There is no reason for the belt, it was/is a marketing tool. There is no reason for the radiused shoulder, it to is/was a marketing tool and really does none of the things that Weatherby originally claimed for it. It would be simple to simply use a 28 degree or better a 40 degree shoulder.
The case capacity as is is a full 25% greater than the .223 in it's military version. The .223 holds 31 grains of ball powder and the .224 holds 41 grains. As a quick comparison the .223 will drive a 60 grain bullet 3100 fps but a .224 WBY will drive the same bullet to 3600 fps.
The odd case head size on the Weatherby will actually fit the bolt face of a AR15/M16 but if it's an issue it could simply use the standard .223 head size with a rebate.
If shortening the case to achieve the correct AOL to work in a magazine reduces the case capacity to where to desired 3000 fps with a 100/105 grain bullet is lost one could simply form the case with nearly straight walls and take a bit of the taper out and replace the lost case capacity grain for grain.
The increase in case diameter of .039 inches would reduce the magazine capacity as it exists by one round. One could probably design a spring or follower that would negate that as an issue.
Like I said there isn't much new.
It's sort of like the short mags for all the hoopla, most were designed about 40 years ago in one form or another.
It is fun though to play with this stuff and design cartridges.
The best and have fun, that's what it's all about.
Sig685":ognwvvce said:Duck, I'm not sure you understand what I said. While I agree that you cartridge may have better performance that a regular 5.56mm cartridge, the huge expense that would be incurred in barrel swaps, possible magazine swaps, probable bolt swaps and the logistics train to suppoer tall this, only to gain a small increment in performance is sinply not worth it. Add to that the fact your cartridge wouldbeat up the rifle more, and then you have other issues.
On top of that, the .mil acquires and stockpiles M855 and Mk 262 in large industrial quantities; to ramp up production of your round at the same level would require some time and of course would require contracts and royalties and so on.
I simply do not think that your cartridge represents much of an increase over the Mk 262 to warrant such a huge fuss. Good luck with presenting it at SHOT show.