WaterfowlForum.Net

Got bored and necked up the .223 Remington to .257" and .277". Neat results to say the least.

So, what do they call a .223 necked up to .277?

The .lawsuit

RonE wrote:So, what do they call a .223 necked up to .277?

.277 RMFC

The Duck Hammer wrote:

RonE wrote:So, what do they call a .223 necked up to .277?

.277 RMFC

The buttfuckee.

RonE wrote:So, what do they call a .223 necked up to .277?

Hell if I know...

The Duck Hammer wrote:

RonE wrote:So, what do they call a .223 necked up to .277?

.277 RMFC

The Duck Hammer wrote:

RonE wrote:So, what do they call a .223 necked up to .277?

.277 RMFC

*cough dick *cough

R. Chapman wrote:Got bored and necked up the .223 Remington to .257" and .277". Neat results to say the least.

image.jpg

How exactly are the results "neat"? This thread is useless without a gun to shoot them through. I could neck a .50 BMG down to accept a .17 caliber bullet but all it would be is a paper weight...

sws002 wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:Got bored and necked up the .223 Remington to .257" and .277". Neat results to say the least.

image.jpg

How exactly are the results "neat"? This thread is useless without a gun to shoot them through. I could neck a .50 BMG down to accept a .17 caliber bullet but all it would be is a paper weight...

Ya. Neat

sws002 wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:Got bored and necked up the .223 Remington to .257" and .277". Neat results to say the least.

image.jpg

How exactly are the results "neat"? This thread is useless without a gun to shoot them through. I could neck a .50 BMG down to accept a .17 caliber bullet but all it would be is a paper weight...

Well the way I look at is that's a waste of powder for that much overbore.

Course this is just what my friend John says. Barrel life may not be the only thing predicted by the ratio of powder capacity to bore cross-section area. John thinks that if we look at our most accurate cartridges, such as the 6 PPC, and 30 BR, there’s some indication that lower Index numbers are associated with greater inherent accuracy. This is only a theory. John notes: “While I do not have the facilities to validate the hypothesis that the case capacity to bore area ratio is a good predictor of accuracy — along with other well-known factors — it seems to be one important factor.”

AKPirate wrote:Course this is just what my friend John says. Barrel life may not be the only thing predicted by the ratio of powder capacity to bore cross-section area. John thinks that if we look at our most accurate cartridges, such as the 6 PPC, and 30 BR, there’s some indication that lower Index numbers are associated with greater inherent accuracy. This is only a theory. John notes: “While I do not have the facilities to validate the hypothesis that the case capacity to bore area ratio is a good predictor of accuracy — along with other well-known factors — it seems to be one important factor.”

I like that theory...a lot actually...

sws002 wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:Got bored and necked up the .223 Remington to .257" and .277". Neat results to say the least.

image.jpg

How exactly are the results "neat"? This thread is useless without a gun to shoot them through. I could neck a .50 BMG down to accept a .17 caliber bullet but all it would be is a paper weight...

Something like this?

Rex, and anyone else interested in accurate rifles should read The Secrets of the Houston Warehouse

The link to the article is contained here: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/201 ... c-article/

This has been a public service announcement.

RonE wrote:Rex, and anyone else interested in accurate rifles should read The Secrets of the Houston Warehouse

The link to the article is contained here: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/201 ... c-article/

This has been a public service announcement.

I've read about that before, pretty sweet. That took the wind out of a lot of BS excuses people use.

R. Chapman wrote:

sws002 wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:Got bored and necked up the .223 Remington to .257" and .277". Neat results to say the least.

image.jpg

How exactly are the results "neat"? This thread is useless without a gun to shoot them through. I could neck a .50 BMG down to accept a .17 caliber bullet but all it would be is a paper weight...

Something like this?

image.jpg

Damn that looks like a bad idea.

The Duck Hammer wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:

sws002 wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:Got bored and necked up the .223 Remington to .257" and .277". Neat results to say the least.

image.jpg

How exactly are the results "neat"? This thread is useless without a gun to shoot them through. I could neck a .50 BMG down to accept a .17 caliber bullet but all it would be is a paper weight...

Something like this?

image.jpg

Damn that looks like a bad idea.

Can't imagine it's have very good bullet stability.

It probably would at about 950 meters, after it slowed down to 3,500 fps or so

assateague wrote:It probably would at about 950 meters, after it slowed down to 3,500 fps or so

With a barrel life of only 5 shots.

R. Chapman wrote:

assateague wrote:It probably would at about 950 meters, after it slowed down to 3,500 fps or so

With a barrel life of only 5 shots.

But you could kill five squirrels with head shots at 3 miles. Totally worth it.

The Duck Hammer wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:

assateague wrote:It probably would at about 950 meters, after it slowed down to 3,500 fps or so

With a barrel life of only 5 shots.

But you could kill five squirrels with head shots at 3 miles. Totally worth it.

R. Chapman wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:

assateague wrote:It probably would at about 950 meters, after it slowed down to 3,500 fps or so

With a barrel life of only 5 shots.

But you could kill five squirrels with head shots at 3 miles. Totally worth it.

You guys are assuming that thing doesn't burn up in the atmosphere...

ducks~n~bucks wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:

assateague wrote:It probably would at about 950 meters, after it slowed down to 3,500 fps or so

With a barrel life of only 5 shots.

But you could kill five squirrels with head shots at 3 miles. Totally worth it.

You guys are assuming that thing doesn't burn up in the atmosphere...

We're assuming it doesn't burn up the whole damn planet!

The Duck Hammer wrote:

R. Chapman wrote:

assateague wrote:It probably would at about 950 meters, after it slowed down to 3,500 fps or so

With a barrel life of only 5 shots.

But you could kill five squirrels with head shots at 3 miles. Totally worth it.

a 50 primer alone is probably more potent than a .22 charge!