Shoot a Scuba Tank?

[TyTy]

Yes, we were never trained to shoot to wound. Not once was that mentioned to me while in service.

Have you read about the new round under testing? I think Remington cooked it up, it's basically a short-action .270, I'm drawing a blank on the actual designation they're using. Looks like it should be a substantially better combat round than the 223 without carrying too much of a penalty in terms of weight & space to carry a decent amount of ammo.

I think that is the round that H&K is using in their gun that is taking a run at replacement of the M-16. I am from Columbus GA and H&K built a facility right near Ft. Benning rumored to be for that purpose.

I know a .223 even hollow point does not seem to be very effective against southern deer whereas my .270 drops 99.9%.

(We are way off subject)

Seriously though, if shooting a scuba tank to kill it the .270 seems to be the most effective of the rounds tested in this scenario, what I was orignally sayng is that the 7mm having gone straight through would not have been effective at putting the tank down as the .270 that stayed in the tank.

 

[Wayward Son]

I'm just south of you in Eufaula. Hadn't heard about H&K being there, that's interesting.

 

[serambin]

Larry used a 7mm STW which is a round based on the infamous .375 H&H Magnum.

Here is some info on the 7mm STW.

What infamous!!!

I'll have you know the 'venerable 375 HH' is very much alive and well. When using lighter weight bullets, it shoots almost as flat as a .338 WM. I've never had a deer, elk, moose, or bear (and soon to be scuba tank) complain about the effectiveness of the round. My custom Ruger Safari Grade with french walnut stock, is one of my most beautiful rifles.

So, there (raspberry sound goes here).

P. S. When hunting for scuba tanks, which is the more prized species, the Legendary Luxfer or the ever Cunning Catalina? Either way, I've got a spot picked out in the trophy room for the mount (full body of course).

Stan

 

[Randy43068]

What infamous!!!

I'll have you know the 'venerable 375 HH' is very much alive and well. When using lighter weight bullets, it shoots almost as flat as a .338 WM. I've never had a deer, elk, moose, or bear (and soon to be scuba tank) complain about the effectiveness of the round. My custom Ruger Safari Grade with french walnut stock, is one of my most beautiful rifles.

So, there (raspberry sound goes here).

P. S. When hunting for scuba tanks, which is the more prized species, the Legendary Luxfer or the ever Cunning Catalina? Either way, I've got a spot picked out in the trophy room for the mount (full body of course).

Stan

Please get video of this. No doubt many of use would love to see it! I sure would!
I'll bet a buck that most, if not all of the complainers about this thread will watch it, too.

 

[Darin]

Yes, we were never trained to shoot to wound. Not once was that mentioned to me while in service.

Have you read about the new round under testing? I think Remington cooked it up, it's basically a short-action .270, I'm drawing a blank on the actual designation they're using. Looks like it should be a substantially better combat round than the 223 without carrying too much of a penalty in terms of weight & space to carry a decent amount of ammo.

I believe your talking about the 6.8 SPC. Rumor has it that it was a joint effort with some SF guys and Remington.

I haven't been able to do the research on it but from what I hear it is ballistically similar to the 7.62X39 that's so popular worldwide. I built a rifle chambered in the 6.8 SPC a while back. Haven't heard back tho. Ironically, the rifle was chambered in 7.62x39 to start with.

What this all boils down to is this; You have to tailor the round/rifle/optics/etc. to the situation. Bad news for all you one-caliber lovers. It ain't perfect, no matter how much you like it. Just like the complaint of the 5.56 rounds' lack of range. The M4 that is so popular in the middle east right now was never intended to engage targets out past say, 500 meters. Certainly you could argue that but, that was never what it's intent was. It was intended as a short-range, close combat weapon.

Again, there is no perfect weapon. We see companies that make "combat" weapons strapping all sorts of bells, whistles, dingers, wizzagidgets and other paraphernalia to make them so cumbersome and unwieldy that it boggles the mind.

Anyway, like a fellow gunsmith said to me, "Opinions are like armpits, everyone has a couple and they usually stink".

So, take it or leave it. JMHO.

So, is this a long range wild tank? Or short range? In a close kelp forest? Or stampeding from the shores? It all depends.....

Darin