.30-06 users

newby.204

Has anyone ever come across remingtons 55gr accelerator round for .30-06? For those of you who don't know its a .224 round loaded into a .30-06 case.

Cass

Never heard of them.

Would they not wreck your barrel? Maybe i read this wrong but if its a .224 bullet in a necked down 30-06 case then the bullet will never actually engage the lands/grooves so would, in effect, rattle down the barrel. This would, over time, destroy the barrel/rifling, and could cause blowback as the case neck would have to expand a huge amount, in shooting terms, to make a clean "seal" against the chamber.

I reckon it would be dangerous, inaccurate and troublesome. Of course these are all assumptions and you know what they say about assuming. It makes an ass out of u and me.

It wasn't me!

It's in a sabot.

FISMA

newby.204 wrote: »

Has anyone ever come across remingtons 55gr accelerator round for .30-06? For those of you who don't know its a .224 round loaded into a .30-06 case.

No and I agree with Ez, it is the last thing I would want to run through my barrel. I would expect that it would create uneven wear through the barrel.

My 30-06 is eating up the 180gr bullets. The Superformance makes life more fun.

newby.204

Ezridax wrote: »

Never heard of them.

Would they not wreck your barrel? Maybe i read this wrong but if its a .224 bullet in a necked down 30-06 case then the bullet will never actually engage the lands/grooves so would, in effect, rattle down the barrel. This would, over time, destroy the barrel/rifling, and could cause blowback as the case neck would have to expand a huge amount, in shooting terms, to make a clean "seal" against the chamber.

I reckon it would be dangerous, inaccurate and troublesome. Of course these are all assumptions and you know what they say about assuming. It makes an ass out of u and me.

should have said, its seated in the neck with a plastic jacket to engage the lands/grooves of the barrel(tbh its like something out of a film) Duffys has them listed on their website however its just ripped directly from remingtons ammunition page so i doubt they even know what they are!! I should also state I only came across these online(Gunnersden) because i was doing a ballistics search on the 30-06!! however they are listed on remingtons website 30-06 Springfield R30069 55 Accelerator, PSP

Cass

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's in a sabot.

newby.204 wrote: »

should have said, its seated in the neck with a plastic jacket to engage the lands/grooves of the barrel...............

I got ya now.

Still never of them but have heard of the concept. Never seen it. I presume its to make a smaller round travel faster by using a larger case to create higher MV.

Don;t see the need. As FISMA said i'd stick with 180gr for 30-06. Effective, cheap enough to run and does everything you need.

I wonder would a .224 round pushed too fast cause the round to "strip" if it was fired. I seen it on a doc. one night, The centrifugial force is so strong that the copper jcket "peels" and the lead just disintergrates under the pressure. I know remmy wouldn't sell ammo that falls apart, but i fail to see the need for a 55gr 30-06 round. Maybe foxing. All good for caliber but what price are they?

newby.204

Ezridax wrote: »

I got ya now.

Still never of them but have heard of the concept. Never seen it. I presume its to make a smaller round travel faster by using a larger case to create higher MV.

Don;t see the need. As FISMA said i'd stick with 180gr for 30-06. Effective, cheap enough to run and does everything you need.

I wonder would a .224 round pushed too fast cause the round to "strip" if it was fired. I seen it on a doc. one night, The centrifugial force is so strong that the copper jcket "peels" and the lead just disintergrates under the pressure. I know remmy wouldn't sell ammo that falls apart, but i fail to see the need for a 55gr 30-06 round. Maybe foxing. All good for caliber but what price are they?

thats exactly why they introduced it, to make the .30-06(and a couple of other calibers) more versatile

Sparks

Just as an aside, any sabot/accelerator ammunition is on the restricted list, so even if your firearm's not restricted, you need a restricted licence to have that kind of ammo...

Cass

Fair point, but honestly i'd stick with something like the Sako 123gr for foxes. €28 per box, less kick than the bigger rounds, and still well capable for dropping charlie, etc. Plus if you are out during deer season you can drop a deer with it and still be legal.

Its a good idea, but i cannot see it catching on. Too many variations of the "proper" caliber IMO. What price are they. cannot find them on Shoot.ie?

newby.204

Ezridax wrote: »

Fair point, but honestly i'd stick with something like the Sako 123gr for foxes. €28 per box, less kick than the bigger rounds, and still well capable for dropping charlie, etc. Plus if you are out during deer season you can drop a deer with it and still be legal.

Its a good idea, but i cannot see it catching on. Too many variations of the "proper" caliber IMO. What price are they. cannot find them on Shoot.ie?

According to shoot he sells core-lokt at €23.40/box but i doubt he'll actually have it in stock, he does have it listed though, 30-06 Springfield R30069 55 Accelerator, PSP

listed about 3/4 way down the page

http://www.shoot.ie/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_15_47_49&products_id=186&zenid=f43082319cf98b211951d20bb27681c6

@sparks, and of course it is!! why wouldnt it be?? ****hole of a country that we have and the legislation to go with it!!!

Tackleberrywho

newby.204 wrote: »

According to shoot he sells core-lokt at €23.40/box but i doubt he'll actually have it in stock, he does have it listed though, 30-06 Springfield R30069 55 Accelerator, PSP

listed about 3/4 way down the page

http://www.shoot.ie/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_15_47_49&products_id=186&zenid=f43082319cf98b211951d20bb27681c6

@sparks, and of course it is!! why wouldnt it be?? ****hole of a country that we have and the legislation to go with it!!!

I know a couple of guys with 8mm mauser Rifles, which would mean that they theoritically could fire sabots

but FFS anything a .30-06 or an 8mm can't drop here is non existant, unless you work in Dublin Zoo

Sparks

newby.204 wrote: »

@sparks, and of course it is!! why wouldnt it be?? ****hole of a country that we have and the legislation to go with it!!!

:pac: I know the feeling :pac:
Most of the restricted ammo on the list makes sense - grenades, armour-piercing ammo, incendiary ammo, bombs, mortar shells, RPGs and pretty much all the shoulder-mounted rockets you can think of, and less esoterically, ammunition for a restricted firearm (which is only logical I suppose).
Less sensible is slug ammunition for shotguns and sabot rounds for rifle ammunition. Quite why they're on it I don't know.

It wasn't me!

Sparks wrote: »

Quite why they're on it I don't know.

Sabots are traditionally an armour-piercing innovation as sheer speed is the most useful tool for the job, so it has the same image and its practical civilian applications are ignored.

Tackleberrywho

<mod snip>
Nobody has been able to tell me for certain are BT or hollow point .40 cal ammo restricted, as .40 cal is restriced anyway, or sabot .40 cal

Grizzly 45

The Remington Accelarator brand has been knocking around since the early 1980s.
Only reason I could think the PTB would be soooo frightned of it is simply the fact it would mindfuk the ballistics folks.Say somone is shot with a 3006 and the bullet is a .224?They are running around looking for a .224 murder weapon wih a smoothbore.:rolleyes:As there is no rifling imprints on the bullet head.Of course that somone has ever been or would be shot in these circumstances is extremly remote,bar in some beauracrats imagination.
Or somone saw the dreaded "sabot round" in some Hollywood blockbuster,and immediately decided it is the Devils work and must not fall into the hands of Irish gunowners as it is sure to pervert us all into psychopaths.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

<mod snip of quoted post>
They <mod:meaning solid slug shotgun rounds> have a recognised competition under BDMP,[No DBBLS permitted Sorry!:D]and could be used on foxes as well in the 410 .

<mod snip>

Tackleberrywho

Grizz, 4.5" group @100 yards with .410 slugs will not make a fox gun.

<mod snip>

Snake_Doctor

I suspect they are restricted because Sobot rounds do not have any marks on them for the ballistics boys to match to the rifle combined with the mindset of our overseers....
Just saw, Grizzly beat me to it.

Bananaman

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Shotgun Slugs/Sabot Slugs are not permitted on deer and therefore unless for pure tom-foolery; thus have no purpose.

Target Shotgun - e.g. the Embassy Cup, etc.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Most of the restricted ammo on the list makes sense - grenades, armour-piercing ammo, incendiary ammo, bombs, mortar shells, RPGs and pretty much all the shoulder-mounted rockets you can think of, and less esoterically, ammunition for a restricted firearm (which is only logical I suppose).
Less sensible is slug ammunition for shotguns and sabot rounds for rifle ammunition. Quite why they're on it I don't know.

That would, in theory, make all subsonic 22lr ammo, or bog standard shotgun cartridges, restricted ammunition - as there are loads of restricted firearms which use them.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

That would, in theory, make all subsonic 22lr ammo, or bog standard shotgun cartridges, restricted ammunition - as there are loads of restricted firearms which use them.

No, it's luckily not that bad:

any other ammunition designed or manufactured for use exclusively in
a restricted firearm;

Note the highlighted word.

edit:
That being said, the earlier line:

ammunition for short firearms, except ammunition for any of those
mentioned in subparagraph (2)(a) or (2)(e) of paragraph 4;

could mean that the traditional UK centerfire gallery rifle rifles if used over here would need restricted licences (as they're often chambered for centerfire pistol calibres). Which isn't the end of days by any means, obviously, and you could argue that the next line covers gallery rifles... but that also means that you can't have the pistol as it's restricted, but can have its ammunition...
You have to love our firearms laws...

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's luckily not that bad:

Another wacky catchall in the legislation.

.220, .223, .243, .270, .303 and .308 (-> ~4000 ft/lbs (guess) )
would not be restricted as
a) they are .308" or lower in calibre (not restricted)
b) they can be used in non-restricted bolt action rifles (not restricted)

whereas

.38 special ammo (-> ~250 ft/lbs (Guess) )
is restricted, as
a) they are larger than a .308" in calibre (restricted)
b) they can be used in revolvers (restricted)

Even .357 magnums which would probably not develop a quarter of the energy of a .223 (wild guess) are restricted, by virtue of their calibre.

Bananas

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Another wacky catchall in the legislation.

Only one of many

a) they are .308" or lower in diameter (not restricted)

Actually, just on that point - and it's not nitpicking for a reason I'll mention in a second, they're ..308 or lower in calibre. It's a fairly important distinction because diameter != calibre (if diameter was the same as calibre, then .303 rounds would be restricted as their diameter is .312 or thereabouts).

.38 special ammo (-> ~250 ft/lbs (Guess) )
is restricted, as
a) they are larger than a .308" in diameter (restricted)
b) they can be used in revolvers (restricted)

Yup.
Though I would think you could argue against (b) there in a court (but you'd probably have to go to court, which is desperately suboptimal).

rowa

Bananaman wrote: »

Another wacky catchall in the legislation.

.220, .223, .243, .270, .303 and .308 (-> ~4000 ft/lbs (guess) )
would not be restricted as
a) they are .308" or lower in calibre (not restricted)
b) they can be used in non-restricted bolt action rifles (not restricted)

whereas

.38 special ammo (-> ~250 ft/lbs (Guess) )
is restricted, as
a) they are larger than a .308" in calibre (restricted)
b) they can be used in revolvers (restricted)

Even .357 magnums which would probably not develop a quarter of the energy
of a .223 (wild guess) are restricted, by virtue of their calibre.



Bananas

I agree , surely if aherns intention was to ban or make it extremely difficult to get larger calibre rifles such as the .50 bmg or .408 cheytac etc he would have based the restriction on muzzle energy rather then bullet diameter ? I find it stupid that a .300 winchester magnum or .300 h&h magnum are not restricted where as a relatively low powered pistol round like the .357 or .44 are.
Alternatively he could have published a list of restricted rounds as is done in california.

Bananaman

rowa wrote: »

I agree , surely if aherns intention was to ban or make it extremely difficult to get larger calibre rifles such as the .50 bmg or .408 cheytac etc he would have based the restriction on muzzle energy rather then bullet diameter ? I find it stupid that a .300 winchester magnum or .300 h&h magnum are not restricted where as a relatively low powered pistol round like the .357 or .44 are.
Alternatively he could have published a list of restricted rounds as is done in california.

He could have outlined the problem(s) to the relevant sections of the shooting community and had them propose workable solutions ..... oh hold on ..... that would have made sense.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

I agree , surely if aherns intention was to ban or make it extremely difficult to get larger calibre rifles such as the .50 bmg or .408 cheytac etc he would have based the restriction on muzzle energy rather then bullet diameter?

I think maybe you're giving him a bit too much credit in the deep thinking department there rowa...

I find it stupid that a .300 winchester magnum or .300 h&h magnum are not restricted where as a relatively low powered pistol round like the .357 or .44 are.

Alternatively he could have published a list of restricted rounds as is done in california.

Seriously, that would have been a disaster - just look at the fun they have over there whenever a new firearm is developed. A restricted list (as in, an actual list of makes and models) is a really bad idea in law, because a law has to go through the Dail to be changed or updated; and even an SI takes a bit of a run-up to get altered; more than you'd be able to generate because a new .22lr pistol was brought to market. After it became clear that we couldn't get around the restricted class of firearms being created (and that didn't really become clear until Ahern announced on the front page of the newspapers that he was going to ban things), a lot of effort went into keeping any list of models or makes out of statute law for just that reason (it couldn't be kept out of the Commissioner's guidelines because you can't really lobby the Commissioner).

rowa

Is there no way the magic list can be updated at regular intervals , say every 3 years or so ? Its a pity also that a special exemption can't be made for rifles chambered for the popular centrefire pistol calibres so they can be held on a non restricted licence.

Sparks

If the will was there rowa, finding a way would be trivial. But to put it politely, the top levels of the AGS do not seem terribly disposed to the notion.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

If the will was there rowa, finding a way would be trivial. But to put it politely, the top levels of the AGS do not seem terribly disposed to the notion.

So in a decades time the irish pistol team will be heading off to top competitions with out of date relics ? And how did it come about that what is basically a trade union dictates what we can and can't legally use ? Surely in a democracy it is up to a elected minister for justice to say what we can use ?

Sparks

Er, no rowa, that was the point - the statute doesn't list makes and models, only the guidelines do, so if you want a pistol that conforms to the statutes but isn't on the list in the guidelines, you're not stymied by law (you might have to pursuade the Chief Super that it's not on the list because it wasn't manufactured when the list was drafted, but the FPU and your NGB can assist there, and persuasion is a damn sight easier than changing statute law).

Grizzly 45

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Grizz, 4.5" group @100 yards with .410 slugs will not make a fox gun.

Sabots would be excellent on deer at short ranges/woodland shooting but are illegal for that purpose.

Thats a pretty good group for any shotgun slug! @+/- 90meters .Be it 12 or .410.:D
Do NOT expect target rifle like accruacy from a shotgun using slugs at those distances.They are close in rounds ,optimal from 60 meters inwards.
Sabots and slugs are two different kind of ammo,there is the sabot slug,that does look like a little missile made by the French Sauvestre ammo company,which is considerd THE most accruate of the slugs out there,and is also the most expensive too.

You are not allowed use them on an application to NPWS. If it was legal, everyone who had a shotgun and wanted to shoot deer would have one.
I had an in-depth conversation with a ranger on this topic recently.

Funny that..Until a few years ago,until shotgun slugs were discussed here on Boards.ie ,the PTB never had a clue that slugs existed and openly admitted it before the last legislation!More like again the dreadful mistrust our Govts and police forces have of the general shooting public having any acess to firearms at all,rather than giving anyone a proper tool for a certain job.

In some scenarios a Slug gun would be ideal on deer over a rifle, but the can of worms a 12g Semi Auto Shotgun would fall into would be vast.

In what way?How?

As a restricted Firearm as Tactical shotgun with scope would be ideal on woodland close quarter deer IMHO, it could also open up deer shooting to the masses.

TBH,you must have a herd of deer that you can sneak up on to start doing that effectively:eek::D.I dunno,but we have been using them in Germany for a two generations now either out of an old Browning A5 humpback 5 shot 12 GA with a 20in barrel and bead sight,or a bog standard drilling 12 GA/9.3,and have dropped wild boar on driven shoots aplenty.Nothing has been shot at over 40 meters in the woodland,as the terrain doesnt allow it.

I'm not so sure we need "the masses" out hunting deer either.While the concept is laudable,the thought of some Fkcwitts out with shotguns firing solid chunks of lead around the countryside,that will carry over 1200 meters [1312 yards] fired at 23degrees elevation [I remember that question from my German hunting test!:eek:] would be somwhat alarming.And by those kind,I mean the idiots who shoot up roadsigns from speeding cars.:mad:.
Ironically ,it is also in the US the States that only allow slugs for deer hunting near urban areas,that have the greatest hunting accidents,of people being shot by slugs!:rolleyes:

surely if aherns intention was to ban or make it extremely difficult to get larger calibre rifles such as the .50 bmg or .408 cheytac etc he would have based the restriction on muzzle energy rather then bullet diameter ? I find it stupid that a .300 winchester magnum or .300 h&h magnum are not restricted where as a relatively low powered pistol round like the .357 or .44 are.
Alternatively he could have published a list of restricted rounds as is done in california.

Dont think there was any making it difficult,just a knejerk reaction through ignorance and misinformation and hysteria of the "deadliness" of guns that can shoot for over two miles and other hysterical rubbish!:rolleyes:

As for the CA list..Biggest joke in CA that!:pApplies to 50 cal,and yet there is a live and well 50 cal organisation in CA..It was more aimed at getting the Barrett 50 cal SA off the sales counter.End effect,the rise of big bore "wildcat" calibres,and single shot 50 cal rifles.

Longranger

Does this mean that instead of messing about with a restricted cert for a .338 federal,basically a fat .308 firing a 185 grain round at 2700 fps with 4200j of energy at the muzzle,or I can go out and,buy,unrestricted, a .30-378 weatherby magnum(still .30 calibre) firing a 180 grain round at 3400 fps with 6300 j of energy and not have any hassle? If that's the case then do the people that make the decisions have a feckin clue what they're doing? Methinks NOT!