Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Ammo & Reloading
100 years down the drain
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ripnbst" data-source="post: 1559337" data-attributes="member: 16136"><p>Your margin of error when aiming 10 feet high is exponentially greater than aiming 10" high. Plus if your bullet is only falling 10" its a much straighter trajectory meaning likely less bullet flight time so there is less chance of the wind blowing, animal moving, etc. It creates an all-around better situation. 45-70 does it flawlessly inside 100 yards, push it out to 400 and the retained energy is significantly less than that of the true magnums say .300 win mag for example. Magnums job is to hit hard yes, but the true magnums will continue to hit hard at distance, they do have merit.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>I agree with both lines of thinking.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>57mm to me is a compromise, not the best of both worlds. You are sacrificing the compact lightweight nature of the 51 for something larger and you are sacrificing the power of the full length 63. Each has its own place and neither one belongs where the other is. You can't defy physics and science. In order to get the power out of today's 63mm case cartridges, you need the 63mm of length. Going to a proposed 57mm case sacrifices power with all other aspects the same.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ripnbst, post: 1559337, member: 16136"] Your margin of error when aiming 10 feet high is exponentially greater than aiming 10" high. Plus if your bullet is only falling 10" its a much straighter trajectory meaning likely less bullet flight time so there is less chance of the wind blowing, animal moving, etc. It creates an all-around better situation. 45-70 does it flawlessly inside 100 yards, push it out to 400 and the retained energy is significantly less than that of the true magnums say .300 win mag for example. Magnums job is to hit hard yes, but the true magnums will continue to hit hard at distance, they do have merit. I agree with both lines of thinking. 57mm to me is a compromise, not the best of both worlds. You are sacrificing the compact lightweight nature of the 51 for something larger and you are sacrificing the power of the full length 63. Each has its own place and neither one belongs where the other is. You can't defy physics and science. In order to get the power out of today's 63mm case cartridges, you need the 63mm of length. Going to a proposed 57mm case sacrifices power with all other aspects the same. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Ammo & Reloading
100 years down the drain
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom