bushpig1998
Active member
I've been doing a lot of reading and comparing. The 7.62 NATO has too much recoil to be used as an AR round, the 5.56 is too small and not powerful enough....the 6x45 is a good idea, but just lacks that extra bit of punch.
So here's my idea? Why not use the .243? It has less recoil than the 7.62 NATO, yet has the same down range performance - good penetration and excellent ballistics. It will require that we start sing modified AR10's instead of M16/M4's - the magazine well in the M16/M4 series is not long enough to accomodate the longer .243 rounds, BUT is would really go a long way towards having a common round for infantry. Instead of 7.62 for MG and 5.56 for AR, we would have one round for both!
The 6mm bullet of the .243 offers better sectional density and ballistic coeffecient, thus also better acuracy than either the 5.56 or 7.62. since it uses necked down 7.62NATO brass, we already have half of the manufacturing out of the way!
So here's my idea? Why not use the .243? It has less recoil than the 7.62 NATO, yet has the same down range performance - good penetration and excellent ballistics. It will require that we start sing modified AR10's instead of M16/M4's - the magazine well in the M16/M4 series is not long enough to accomodate the longer .243 rounds, BUT is would really go a long way towards having a common round for infantry. Instead of 7.62 for MG and 5.56 for AR, we would have one round for both!
The 6mm bullet of the .243 offers better sectional density and ballistic coeffecient, thus also better acuracy than either the 5.56 or 7.62. since it uses necked down 7.62NATO brass, we already have half of the manufacturing out of the way!
