- Messages
- 9,810
- Reactions
- 13,265
So this is why a 9mm 115g has snappy recoil vs a 147g that has more of a 'push', easier to control?
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Why do heavier bullets require LESS powder?
- Thread Starter zippygaloo
- Start date
So did you try to chamber the longer round? Also I never said the head space was off the bullet did I? Throat and Leade and not headspace, but a chamber cut too deep >Headspace issue< will take a longer bullet. Why not use the 30-06' like you said?
- Messages
- 108
- Reactions
- 7
This is turning out to being a great discussion!
Thank you, Jake2Far, you probably have covered a lot more of the variables that play into the loading dynamics of why heavier bullets need less powder: it's not just simply the bullet is heavier. As my example is laughable, thank you for that as well. I shall have to remember it for next time. I was trying to simply illustrate the concept of resultant pressure with a changing case volume (the hand) and a fixed charge (the firecracker). Maybe next time I should approach it as tightly clenched and lightly clenched instead of open-handed. Does that make more sense in that context?
Spitpatch, out of curiosity, is that how a 150 gr is suppose to be seated for .270? I don't own one, so I have no idea. My concern with the left one is that it's far too long and the bullet would be wedged into the lands (and thus causing the unhealthy pressure spike as Jake2Far has mentioned)? If it's not, and it's suppose to be seated further in you'd have the situation I'm trying to illustrate. The resultant case volume is smaller, and attempting to ignite an identical volume of powder would yield much higher pressures (and potentially above what the firearm is designed to withstand).
Anyway, we're all saying the same thing just pointing out different aspects of the same concept: as you step up in bullet size the powder has to goes down. I'm looking at it as a case volume/pressure mechanics, Spitpatch is looking at it as a inertia, and Jake2Far is pointing out other considerations as the part of the system. The mechanics behind it are a lot more complex than either of us three are making it out to be (take a look at the Hornady page that Page.K linked if you want to see the tip of the iceberg), we're just choosing our perspectives as which is the easiest way of explaining it.
Thank you, Jake2Far, you probably have covered a lot more of the variables that play into the loading dynamics of why heavier bullets need less powder: it's not just simply the bullet is heavier. As my example is laughable, thank you for that as well. I shall have to remember it for next time. I was trying to simply illustrate the concept of resultant pressure with a changing case volume (the hand) and a fixed charge (the firecracker). Maybe next time I should approach it as tightly clenched and lightly clenched instead of open-handed. Does that make more sense in that context?
Spitpatch, out of curiosity, is that how a 150 gr is suppose to be seated for .270? I don't own one, so I have no idea. My concern with the left one is that it's far too long and the bullet would be wedged into the lands (and thus causing the unhealthy pressure spike as Jake2Far has mentioned)? If it's not, and it's suppose to be seated further in you'd have the situation I'm trying to illustrate. The resultant case volume is smaller, and attempting to ignite an identical volume of powder would yield much higher pressures (and potentially above what the firearm is designed to withstand).
Anyway, we're all saying the same thing just pointing out different aspects of the same concept: as you step up in bullet size the powder has to goes down. I'm looking at it as a case volume/pressure mechanics, Spitpatch is looking at it as a inertia, and Jake2Far is pointing out other considerations as the part of the system. The mechanics behind it are a lot more complex than either of us three are making it out to be (take a look at the Hornady page that Page.K linked if you want to see the tip of the iceberg), we're just choosing our perspectives as which is the easiest way of explaining it.
- Messages
- 2,405
- Reactions
- 577
Assuming that all other variables are the same. You are using mass as the only variable but in the case of a bullet, I have to agree with those that point out that heavier bullets are either longer or have a different shape. This can affect the manner in which they get moving. When two bullets are fired in the same firearm there is another variable that comes into play. The amount of "jump" from seated position to contact with the lands (freebore and leade). (Note: If one is shooting a rifle with headspace off enough to allow seating of and excessively long, heavy bullet, cartridge, I see bad things in your near future).
Different shooters will have different results solely on the basis of differences in their rifles. A rifle chambered for Match use has minimal freebore and leade. It's cut to fit a specific cartridge length and bullet so the shooter can have what they consider the optimum amount of jump. Most factory rifles are chambered with more freebore and leade so that the shooter can pretty much shoot any bullet weight and COAL that's produced for that caliber. The Military will add to the leade so they can shoot the Mil-Spec loads, a classic example of that is the 5.56 NATO. A higher pressure round that has the same COAL, ogive, bearing surface, etc. as civilian rounds but it requires the 5.56 chamber so the bullet isn't jammed into the lands and allows some relief to the pressure spike before failure pressures are reached.
What I see here in this discussion is that everyone seems to agree that heavier bullets do use less powder but are applying THEIR circumstances (Match rifle, Hunting Rifle, or even Military Rifle) to the reasons why it's so.
If one was to build a special rifle to test the light bullet/powder/cartridge combination versus the heavy bullet combination so that the insertion depth would all be the same. That the leade and freebore,would be the same, the result would be that the heavier bullet would still take less powder.
- Messages
- 853
- Reactions
- 1,032
Very educational! I've enjoyed this discussion, even if not all of it was as civil as could be, although I'm sure this is not the first time super smart physics disccussion has ever taken place without the occasional intellectual feather being ruffled,
Speaking of feathers. What is the story behind counting your feathers?
Speaking of feathers. What is the story behind counting your feathers?
- Messages
- 4,215
- Reactions
- 6,924
Salvation at last. Thank you, Deadshot.
For Page and Jquirt, I will politely refer you back to the picture post to answer your concerns regarding the 150g projectile's seating depth and whether or not it will chamber properly. The bullet there is seated at the proper depth as would be a factory round (this is a cannelured bullet, cannelure not quite visible at the mouth). I am certain this bullet could be seated some amount further out (and operate in any factory gun), but I went to the cannelure to be sure all was conventional.
As to chambering, I would refer you to the phrase containing "marvelous discovery".
As to why I didn't use a .30-06, I would refer you to the introductory paragraph containing "bench dedicated", and "concept is precisely the same". I would follow this by asking what one might believe would be different had I dug out the '06 stuff. Had I believed a picture was required to demonstrate my premise, I would have begun with the .270 as the original example. Upon request, I would be more than happy to post an identical picture of .30-06 cartridges illustrating the identical relationship. I went with what I had on hand, and could produce quickly, and still lose nothing in demonstration.
Deadshot (and others) are precisely correct that other factors than mass (bullet shape, etc.) are included in the reason why different amounts of powders are required for different projectiles. I concentrated on the OP's original question regarding "larger (heavier)". His inquiry was regarding mass, and so that is what I addressed. Others presented seating depth as the primary reason. I chose a good example to show why that wasn't quite as major of a factor (by eliminating it as a factor, and demonstrating the handloader STILL needs to use less powder for the bigger bullet). I was challenged that my example was not practical, along with condescending statements inquiring whether or not I had read any load books. I responded with illustration to show that it is eminently practical.
I have now been asked why I chose a different caliber to illustrate my original premise, where such reasoning (and its unimportance) were carefully explained previously (along with a mild apology for doing so). I have once again been asked if my illustration shows practical and workable cartridge lengths, when such was also verified previously.
I did fail in one area, and that was my assumption that Page believed cartridges headspace on the bullet somehow. For that wrong assumption, he has more than a mild apology from me. Re-reading his post, I still see how easy it was to make that assumption, but I now know it was wrong of me to assume he didn't know better. I am certain now that he knows a gun with excessive headspace CAN perhaps allow a cartridge normally too long to chamber. I trust he also knows now that a heavy, long bullet (in most any caliber) can be seated to the same depth in the neck as a significantly lighter bullet, and still be a practical, workable load that chambers readily in any factory gun, excessive headspace not necessary for it to chamber.
For JT: I began posting in this thread with a reference to the Warner Bros. cartoon character, Foghorn Leghorn, and his proud technique of being able to recover from any disaster (explosion, etc.) by having his "feathers numbered for just such an occasion" (for restoring himself to health to continue the episode). I continued that theme in later posts as well.
For Page and Jquirt, I will politely refer you back to the picture post to answer your concerns regarding the 150g projectile's seating depth and whether or not it will chamber properly. The bullet there is seated at the proper depth as would be a factory round (this is a cannelured bullet, cannelure not quite visible at the mouth). I am certain this bullet could be seated some amount further out (and operate in any factory gun), but I went to the cannelure to be sure all was conventional.
As to chambering, I would refer you to the phrase containing "marvelous discovery".
As to why I didn't use a .30-06, I would refer you to the introductory paragraph containing "bench dedicated", and "concept is precisely the same". I would follow this by asking what one might believe would be different had I dug out the '06 stuff. Had I believed a picture was required to demonstrate my premise, I would have begun with the .270 as the original example. Upon request, I would be more than happy to post an identical picture of .30-06 cartridges illustrating the identical relationship. I went with what I had on hand, and could produce quickly, and still lose nothing in demonstration.
Deadshot (and others) are precisely correct that other factors than mass (bullet shape, etc.) are included in the reason why different amounts of powders are required for different projectiles. I concentrated on the OP's original question regarding "larger (heavier)". His inquiry was regarding mass, and so that is what I addressed. Others presented seating depth as the primary reason. I chose a good example to show why that wasn't quite as major of a factor (by eliminating it as a factor, and demonstrating the handloader STILL needs to use less powder for the bigger bullet). I was challenged that my example was not practical, along with condescending statements inquiring whether or not I had read any load books. I responded with illustration to show that it is eminently practical.
I have now been asked why I chose a different caliber to illustrate my original premise, where such reasoning (and its unimportance) were carefully explained previously (along with a mild apology for doing so). I have once again been asked if my illustration shows practical and workable cartridge lengths, when such was also verified previously.
I did fail in one area, and that was my assumption that Page believed cartridges headspace on the bullet somehow. For that wrong assumption, he has more than a mild apology from me. Re-reading his post, I still see how easy it was to make that assumption, but I now know it was wrong of me to assume he didn't know better. I am certain now that he knows a gun with excessive headspace CAN perhaps allow a cartridge normally too long to chamber. I trust he also knows now that a heavy, long bullet (in most any caliber) can be seated to the same depth in the neck as a significantly lighter bullet, and still be a practical, workable load that chambers readily in any factory gun, excessive headspace not necessary for it to chamber.
For JT: I began posting in this thread with a reference to the Warner Bros. cartoon character, Foghorn Leghorn, and his proud technique of being able to recover from any disaster (explosion, etc.) by having his "feathers numbered for just such an occasion" (for restoring himself to health to continue the episode). I continued that theme in later posts as well.
- Messages
- 108
- Reactions
- 7
Spitpatch, I stand corrected. In every example you have shown, my experience doesn't stand. You are right and I am obviously wrong.
However, I'll kindly point out the .300 BLK as an example (though, it is a worst case example small case, large bullet) and other wildcats of that vein. It's a niche round (even though it's SAAMI), and will be quickly discounted by you and everybody else since it's not as popular a round as the 30-06 or .270 you used in your examples. However, I do reload for it and case volume tends to be the biggest issue with it, since loading anywhere from the 125 gr Speer TNTs to the 220 gr Sierra SMKs will change the volume since it needs to fit in an AR magazine.
I shall drop out of this conversation now as it's obvious that my point-of-view isn't appreciated (glad to see I can offer an olive branch and have it thrown back in my face) and obviously flawed. I wish you all the best of luck, and be safe reloading.
However, I'll kindly point out the .300 BLK as an example (though, it is a worst case example small case, large bullet) and other wildcats of that vein. It's a niche round (even though it's SAAMI), and will be quickly discounted by you and everybody else since it's not as popular a round as the 30-06 or .270 you used in your examples. However, I do reload for it and case volume tends to be the biggest issue with it, since loading anywhere from the 125 gr Speer TNTs to the 220 gr Sierra SMKs will change the volume since it needs to fit in an AR magazine.
I shall drop out of this conversation now as it's obvious that my point-of-view isn't appreciated (glad to see I can offer an olive branch and have it thrown back in my face) and obviously flawed. I wish you all the best of luck, and be safe reloading.
- Messages
- 4,215
- Reactions
- 6,924
Wow!
1) I would not "discount" any round of reasonable purpose (and the .300 BLK has a definitive purpose!)
2) Your point of view is always appreciated, and your point of view that case volume becomes a MUCH more significant factor in your cartridge of choice is well-taken.
3) If an olive branch was thrown back, it wasn't by me. Discussions and heated arguments are two different things. One is productive (for both), the other is destructive (for all). Another's opinion (and evidence for that opinion) are not personal attacks.
4) This is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that I assume others' hide is as tough as mine.
Peace, Brother.
1) I would not "discount" any round of reasonable purpose (and the .300 BLK has a definitive purpose!)
2) Your point of view is always appreciated, and your point of view that case volume becomes a MUCH more significant factor in your cartridge of choice is well-taken.
3) If an olive branch was thrown back, it wasn't by me. Discussions and heated arguments are two different things. One is productive (for both), the other is destructive (for all). Another's opinion (and evidence for that opinion) are not personal attacks.
4) This is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that I assume others' hide is as tough as mine.
Peace, Brother.
- Messages
- 1,606
- Reactions
- 681
It took 23 posts, but somebody on this thread finally used the right word: inertia. Not bullet mass - its inertia.
Those other considerations like friction may be significant under some circumstances, but doesn't peak chamber pressure occur very early in the burn? Like very, very early? That clearly means the biggest effect is the inertia of the slug.
But anyway - I want to ask the Assembled about a different but related problem: loading for the quietest possible cartridge.
Say in a .45 carbine with a 16" barrel, couldn't I use a very light load of a fast powder, stay within the peak-pressure limits, and get a more complete burn and a greater fall-off in gas pressure before the bullet crowns? I know I'd give up a lot of muzzle velocity, but the goal is to get the gas pressure as low as possible at the moment of crowning, so that the suppressed signature is minimized.
Waddya think?
Those other considerations like friction may be significant under some circumstances, but doesn't peak chamber pressure occur very early in the burn? Like very, very early? That clearly means the biggest effect is the inertia of the slug.
But anyway - I want to ask the Assembled about a different but related problem: loading for the quietest possible cartridge.
Say in a .45 carbine with a 16" barrel, couldn't I use a very light load of a fast powder, stay within the peak-pressure limits, and get a more complete burn and a greater fall-off in gas pressure before the bullet crowns? I know I'd give up a lot of muzzle velocity, but the goal is to get the gas pressure as low as possible at the moment of crowning, so that the suppressed signature is minimized.
Waddya think?
- Messages
- 1,171
- Reactions
- 226
And I thought larger bullets (in the same caliber) used less powder because they took up more space in the case causing higher pressures therefore needing less powder to maintain similar energy as smaller bullets.
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reactions
- 1,286
oh beleive me i am fully aware of The amount of "jump" from seated position to contact with the lands (freebore and leade).
but if you take 45acp into effect you have a 185 grn and a 230 rgn the heavier bullets are or do not have all that much a different shape.
yet the powder for the two are a bit diferent based on gun and bullet mass.
i was usint an easy ilistration to understand trying to move mass and the x and y would have been the amout of powder used to move said mass
but if you take 45acp into effect you have a 185 grn and a 230 rgn the heavier bullets are or do not have all that much a different shape.
yet the powder for the two are a bit diferent based on gun and bullet mass.
i was usint an easy ilistration to understand trying to move mass and the x and y would have been the amout of powder used to move said mass
- Messages
- 131
- Reactions
- 20
Something I can understand, at last.
- Messages
- 247
- Reactions
- 59
First of all, mass IS inertia! The definition of mass is resistance to motion in any direction.
Every reloading manual states very clearly in the opening chapters that chamber pressure limits are the limiting factor in max loads. There are several things that contribute to instantaneous chamber pressure. Trying to limit it to size, seating depth, bullet diameter, powder burn rate, powder charge, primer type, standard v. magnum primers, air temperature, bullet hardness is an exercise in futility (unless your a hobbyist w/ your own fully equipped ballistics lab...it could happen).
Read the manuals, make sure you have a basic understanding of physics, and experiment conservatively.
As far as quieting your load...use a silencer. That's what they are designed for...if you don't like the "bang," take up archery instead.
I think there is something to this photo. Both bullets may have the same head space and have significantly different weights. Look at them: one is short and fat and the other is long and slim. Different weights can also be accomplished by using different metals.
I have a fair amount of education in physics. Simply put pressure is defined as force per area. Force is produced by the powder. The same type and amount of powder will produce the same force regardless of what contains the force (e.g a .22 case or a .308 case). the area is defined by the case minus the head space. if you increase the head space you reduce the area and increase the pressure.
The weight of the round is irrelevant.
That said there is another calculation: Friction. If the friction between the bullet and the barrel is so great the bullet can not leave (blocked barrel): bad news. If the crimp is too great on the seated bullet: bad news. If the friction is too little (think .22 bullet in a .45): then there is no harm but the bullet will not perform as designed. So big bullets with more friction leaving the case (from the crimp) and more friction from the bullet rubbing against the barrel will affect performance. I don't think this will affect how the firearm discharges the bullet I do think this will affect how the fire arm handles. My guess is that the more friction there is the more kick there is from the firearm. Look at the two bullets pictured one is bulkier and one is slimmer. The bulkier one will have more friction. To be honest: while i am sure friction is a real factor I am not sure how the friction factor effects everything.
BTW: while i take you at your word the photo makes the round nose round looks longer.
I have a fair amount of education in physics. Simply put pressure is defined as force per area. Force is produced by the powder. The same type and amount of powder will produce the same force regardless of what contains the force (e.g a .22 case or a .308 case). the area is defined by the case minus the head space. if you increase the head space you reduce the area and increase the pressure.
The weight of the round is irrelevant.
That said there is another calculation: Friction. If the friction between the bullet and the barrel is so great the bullet can not leave (blocked barrel): bad news. If the crimp is too great on the seated bullet: bad news. If the friction is too little (think .22 bullet in a .45): then there is no harm but the bullet will not perform as designed. So big bullets with more friction leaving the case (from the crimp) and more friction from the bullet rubbing against the barrel will affect performance. I don't think this will affect how the firearm discharges the bullet I do think this will affect how the fire arm handles. My guess is that the more friction there is the more kick there is from the firearm. Look at the two bullets pictured one is bulkier and one is slimmer. The bulkier one will have more friction. To be honest: while i am sure friction is a real factor I am not sure how the friction factor effects everything.
BTW: while i take you at your word the photo makes the round nose round looks longer.
Since a picture is worth a thousand words (for some, at least), I offer this:
Today's project was wringing out a new .270 for a 13year-old boy in Montana who has chosen to upgrade from a .243. This makes it very convenient (with all the bench dedicated already) to illustrate my previous point. (My deepest apologies that I did not dig out the .30-06 stuff, but the concept is precisely the same).
On the left you have a heavy roundnose bullet (150g). On the right you have a light hollowpoint (90g: sorry it's not a spitzer). Both are seated to the precisely identical depth in the neck.
Unless I am prepared to exercise Foghorn Leghorn's preparatory system for reassembly of my body, I CANNOT charge the case on the right with a near-maximum load for the 90g bullet, and put the same amount of the same powder into the case behind the 150g bullet on the left.
Oh. Another marvelous discovery: Since the .270 is not one of those very special cartridges that headspace on the bullet, both these cartridges chamber in each of three .270's currently at the house.
No charge for this service. Drive Safely.
- Messages
- 59
- Reactions
- 10
[QUOTE/]
Say in a .45 carbine with a 16" barrel, couldn't I use a very light load of a fast powder, stay within the peak-pressure limits, and get a more complete burn and a greater fall-off in gas pressure before the bullet crowns? I know I'd give up a lot of muzzle velocity, but the goal is to get the gas pressure as low as possible at the moment of crowning, so that the suppressed signature is minimized.
Waddya think?[/QUOTE]
First, you should research a phenomenon called "detonation" that has caused some revolvers to make their backstrap look like a peeled banana....
Say in a .45 carbine with a 16" barrel, couldn't I use a very light load of a fast powder, stay within the peak-pressure limits, and get a more complete burn and a greater fall-off in gas pressure before the bullet crowns? I know I'd give up a lot of muzzle velocity, but the goal is to get the gas pressure as low as possible at the moment of crowning, so that the suppressed signature is minimized.
Waddya think?[/QUOTE]
First, you should research a phenomenon called "detonation" that has caused some revolvers to make their backstrap look like a peeled banana....
- Messages
- 4,215
- Reactions
- 6,924
It took 23 posts, but somebody on this thread finally used the right word: inertia. Not bullet mass - its inertia.
For CHemist: I know its easy to use 20/20 hindsight, but you will note that I even avoided "mass" until pretty late, and someone else ventured to display the term. I was gonna go with "inertia" at that point as well, but there's (in my mind at least) some value in remaining in layman's terms (like the hardboiled egg thing). I would also ask your input as to whether mass is a significant factor in inertia. (Actually may be the root in some cases: I believe it is).
For James: the Roundnose cartridge IS longer. I made no claim it was not. They are not seated to the same OAL. They are seated to the same depth in the neck (in order to illustrate my contention that if we eliminate any disparity in case invasion by the bullet, one still needs to reduce the powder charge).
I wish people would stop using "headspace" when they refer to cartridge OAL influenced by bullet seating depth/length/engaging of the rifling. That is not how I use the term (correct me?). I use it to describe how the CASE fits in the chamber in relation to the bolt as closed.
For CHemist: I know its easy to use 20/20 hindsight, but you will note that I even avoided "mass" until pretty late, and someone else ventured to display the term. I was gonna go with "inertia" at that point as well, but there's (in my mind at least) some value in remaining in layman's terms (like the hardboiled egg thing). I would also ask your input as to whether mass is a significant factor in inertia. (Actually may be the root in some cases: I believe it is).
For James: the Roundnose cartridge IS longer. I made no claim it was not. They are not seated to the same OAL. They are seated to the same depth in the neck (in order to illustrate my contention that if we eliminate any disparity in case invasion by the bullet, one still needs to reduce the powder charge).
I wish people would stop using "headspace" when they refer to cartridge OAL influenced by bullet seating depth/length/engaging of the rifling. That is not how I use the term (correct me?). I use it to describe how the CASE fits in the chamber in relation to the bolt as closed.
- Messages
- 2,405
- Reactions
- 577
Here's a pretty clear explanation I "stole" from the "net".
"All objects resist changes in their state of motion. All objects have this tendency - they have inertia. But do some objects have more of a tendency to resist changes than others? Absolutely yes! The tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion varies with mass. Mass is that quantity that is solely dependent upon the inertia of an object. The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has. A more massive object has a greater tendency to resist changes in its state of motion."
The two are about as tightly linked as Hydrogen and Oxygen in water.
As for headspace, you're spot on. Headspace is a measurement from the case head to a datum point on the shoulder. Some need to add the terms "freebore" and "leade" (which are actually the same thing) to their lexicon.
For those that got lost somewhere along the line, here's a good read from Hornady's website Internal Ballistics - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc
It even has pictures
- Messages
- 4,215
- Reactions
- 6,924
Deadshot to the rescue again. (With one clarification):
"Headspace is a measurement from the case head to a datum point on the shoulder"
I submit to add to Shoulder: Belt (in case of a belted--magnum?--case), or in some cases, the mouth (.45ACP).
I think we can add rim, too.? for some examples??
"Headspace is a measurement from the case head to a datum point on the shoulder"
I submit to add to Shoulder: Belt (in case of a belted--magnum?--case), or in some cases, the mouth (.45ACP).
I think we can add rim, too.? for some examples??
- Messages
- 1,310
- Reactions
- 911
In all your back and forth, you missed something very important. Foghorn Leghorn' most noted use of his feather-numbering system involved a knothole in a fence,an angry dog whose chain length Mr.Leghorn had methodically mapped out to Predator Drone accuracy and a rake handle(and possibly a young Chicken Hawk, easily convinced that the previously mentioned dog was in fact a chicken).
To throw yet another argument in, I believe Foghorn Leghorn to be the second greatest Looney Tunes character. Yosemite Sam was by far the greatest.
Signed,
The Rootin'est, Tootin'est, Low Down Varmint West Of The Pecos(does that one need explained?)
Kip
To throw yet another argument in, I believe Foghorn Leghorn to be the second greatest Looney Tunes character. Yosemite Sam was by far the greatest.
Signed,
The Rootin'est, Tootin'est, Low Down Varmint West Of The Pecos(does that one need explained?)
Kip
- Messages
- 2,405
- Reactions
- 577
Yup! I was referring to the conventional rifle cartridge case. For some reason I tend to overlook "Belted Magnum's" They hurt so bad as a rule I categorize them in the "cannon" classification.
You are totally correct in your earlier statement that "headspace" is how the case fits in the chamber and how much room there is between Case Head and bolt when the case if fully inserted in the chamber. Makes one wonder how they ever came up with the term "Headspace":huh:
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
Aero Precision 15 Enhanced MLOK Handguard, Gen 1
- Started by Tacompton173
- Replies: 0
-
Aero/Anderson AR15 trade for shotgun, glock or eotech
- Started by Robogden
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
2A Armament Balios Lite Handguard 12 MLOK
- Started by Tacompton173
- Replies: 0
-
-
Aero Precision M4E1 Enhanced Upper Receiver SOLD
- Started by Tacompton173
- Replies: 1
-
Federal Champion Value Pack 22 LR 36 Grain Lead Hollow Point 3250 Rnds - $169.76 shipped with code "A5OFF24"- Started by The Heretic
- Replies: 3
-
Speer Grand Slam 270cal. 130 GR. .277"- Started by misterarman
- Replies: 0