Thank you Mr. Shapiro for being generous with your compliments. Much appreciated. I (along with many others), tend to agree with your findings about the 5.56...
Hello Mr. Shapiro. A sequel to this video was recently produced. I hope you will find it to be beneficial. Here is the link to part 2. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.htmlsi=Ba58ZpQvf9dRf6oP Looking forward to your thoughts. Thanks. 👍😎
Our USMC boot camp drill instructor told us that 5.56 had the advantage of causing more interal organ damage to the enemy because the round was more unstable after impact, causing the bullet to tumble and scatter. By comparison, he taught us that the 7.62 was more powerful but had a piercing effect as opposed to the disintegrating effect like the 5.56. The instructor shot a tree trunk in front of us with a 7.62 rifle and the bullet went through the trunk, creating a clean hole all the way to the other side. This video confirms what I learned in boot camp. Thank you.
Which means be careful what size tree you use for cover. The big issue with the 762 is you lose your sight picture when you fire. It takes a second or two to acquire. With the 556 there’s virtually no recoil and you can keep piling them in one after the other on semi automatic, making it much more accurate for combat use. The thing it lacks is penetrating walls. The other thing that people forget unless they’ve humped the bush is the weight of that stuff. Lead is heavy and the difference between 308 and 556 is major. The big surprise for me was the shock of that 77, grain 556 round. That’s incredible that range in particular. I wonder how the drop profile compares to your 68 and 55😢 grain standard ball rounds.
The 77 grain OTM has MASSIVE energy transfer. The jacket is super thin, so it shatters the front half, massive energy dump. The shank will sometimes continue on.
That demo showed me that a faster round goes in and out too quickly for the hydroshock to form to its fullest. While that 77 grain did allow it to form to its fullest, causing more destruction.
Would be interesting to see how the 168 gr would have faired if the cap of the jug would have stayed on like the other two, It looks like it made a good relief valve.
Agreed, would like to see another test. Is it possible that the initial pressure upon impact is significant enough that the cap would come off no matter what?
The cap didn’t fail. The 168 gr projectile is moving much slower, so it gave the cap time to “react”. The faster moving projectiles did not give the cap time to react and blew the wall instead of the cap. Velocity out ways mass every time. The nazi’s were a prime example of mass, had a cannon bigger than a locomotive, sure it could reek havoc., But Tesla knew if you fired a grain of sand at a 100,000 fps that the devastation would be immense. “Particle beam accelerator “
Bullet design is everything. 5.56 was a hollow point and usually with enough velocity open up (mushroom) and more damage. 7.51 and 308 were ball rounds and poke a simple hole.
@@vuv9520only one was ball. One was an open tip match. Technically a hollow point since the tip was followed out. Mostly designed for accuracy, but so is the 77 gr 556. That’s an otm too so I think the just opening really caused a lot of pressure relief for the otm 308 and that’s y it didn’t look as good.
@adam-nv9zo...Just wanted to send a message to let you know that part 2 in this series was recently produced. Here is a link to the sequel. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be on par with or better than the original. 😉👍
Okay...I'll admit, I was surprised by the results! The 5.56 was far more impressive than I was expecting. It seems to be the velocity greatly increases the effect...at least on water jugs. Next, I'd like to see cinder blocks used as targets, I'd suspect the bigger yet slower bullets might do better. But I don't know; therefore thank you for this video, I appreciate seeing those slow motion pics. Very interesting.
Its all about the bullet. Someone who is an subject matter expert on all things 'guns and ammo', showed me how to make a 9mm round into a respectful self defense round. Pick the right gun, ammo for the task at hand. For self defense, I try to maximize the hydraulic shock of the bullet. For bear defense, I only go out with hard cast bullets for penetration (I cast my own, 10mm, 357mag)
Beyond the information in the video, which was very good, the frame by frame analysis at the end was exceptionally well done. This is the first video I have seen that has gone into that much detail. Full credit for doing a good job with this video.
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but was working on producing a sequel to this vid. Here is the link to part 2. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be as good or better than the original. 👍😎
The 16" barrel handicapped the 308 compared to an 18" barrel for the 5.56. The 308 really gains velocity with the longer barrel, out to about 22" or so.
Thank you Mr. Claus for taking the time to watch the video and for sharing some intelligent food for thought. In fact, both calibers were somewhat handicapped by barrel length. They both would have benefited from longer length barrels (especially if both were test fired from a bolt action.) At a very close distance like 50 or 100 yards this would have been a greater factor to consider, but at a distance of 300 yards, with both rounds having a chance to lose a lot of velocity I would have thought that the .308 could have easily overcome the difference in barrel length.
Greeting Mr. Claus. Just wanted to send you a friendly message to let you know that a sequel to this video has been produced and that your ideas were carefully considered when making part 2 in this series. Here is the link to part 2. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be useful. Looking forward to your reply in the comments section of the new video. Thanks. 😎
That was simply amazing and not what I was expecting. You’ve done a great job in showing how effective the Mk262 round is. It helps explain why it was such a coveted round in the Middle East war.
@Dennisthemenace40. Just wanted to send a message to let you know that part 2 in this video series was recently produced. Here is a link to the sequel. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be on par with the first one. 😎👍
Technically, it's not a MK262 as that is only produced by Black Hills. That said, this sig version of the 262 seemed to have better numbers than I get from my lot of BH MK263, which clocks in at 2,779fps from my 18" white oak. I'm very impressed with this Sig version and now have to try it. I reload a 77gr using IMR8208xbr which I have gotten up to 2,836 in 10 shot avg as opposed to the BH MK262 at 2,779. Either way, this is ine of the most impressive and surprising test I have seen, and goes to show that numbers can be deceiving.
Unfortunately the energy of the 7.62 passed on through. Maybe a lighter weight bullet so that it could break up and all energy could transfer to the jug. Amazing what the 77 grain did though.
What we're seeing here is penetration capacity. What would be the outcome if there had been a second jug set up behind each of the three tested here? How much damage would have been done to the second target? What would happen if the jugs were set up at 500 yards instead of three. Air is fluid and has significant resistance when objects are moving as fast as bullets. People don't think about a bullet flight as penetration of Air. But that is essentially what happens.
Thank you Pumpkoi for your ideas and enthusiasm on the v-max. You will be pleased to hear that the v-max version(s) are already filmed and are being edited now...
I'm theorizing that the 5.56 77 gr tumbled and broke up, expending all striking force in the jug. The heavier 168gr / 147 gr bullets, with higher striking force, remained more stable and punched through, only expending partial striking force in the jug. Trying the same test again with soft point hunting ammo in all calibers would allow the heavier .308 bullets to expend most bullet striking force in the jug. In testing .31 and .36 caliber cap and ball revolvers, using original 1850's era pointed conical bullets moving at ~900 fps, the little .31 80 grain conical actually had more explosive damage on the 1st 1 gallon water jug than the .36 125 grain conical even though the 125 grain .36 actually has about 60% greater striking force. The reason was because the .31 cal 80 grain conical tumbled on impact, while the .36 125 gr conical punched straight thru!
@@section8usmc53 1:8 is actually the preferred twist rate for shooting 77gr ammo. The reason 1:7 exists is to be able to stabilize tracers from my understanding. Looking at a tracer outside of the case it is considerably longer than 77gr otm
Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and for providing some solid food for thought. Wanted to respond sooner but was busy producing the sequel to this vid. Here is the link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be on par with or better than the original. 🙂👍
@stephenbrown9068. That is a very true statement. Wanted to respond sooner. Was tied up with making the sequel to this vid. Her is the link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be beneficial. 👍
Just wanted to send you a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is a link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will like it as much as the original. 🙂👍
It Looks Like The Old 5.56 Is Definitely A Highly Effective Round Out To 300 Yards! So Much For All Of The Hate It Receives From Some Folks! Using The Right Type Of Ammo Truly Makes A Difference In Effectiveness! ✌️🇺🇸✌️
That was really cool. I’d love to see other .223 and 5.56 rounds. Namely 62 and 55 grain…I suppose I could get off my lazy butt and do it myself. But your camera work and narration is excellent. Thanks! Lol…edit…just subbed and checked out your channel…and there’s the videos! On my way to see what happens! NICE
For years there has been a debate about using 22 caliber bullets to hunt deer and even larger game, this test goes to show the .224 bullet at high velocity creates a massive pressure wave and the damage it can inflict is enormous. Ron Spomer talked about a market hunter in Alaska named Frank Glaser, he worked for the Army and road building crews to keep them supplied with meat, his cartridge of choice the 220 Swift with 48 gr bullets. If you do not know the the 220 Swift is fastest commercially produced cartridge ever with a velocity of 4,665 fps(Wikipedia). Frank Glaser trapped/ hunted wolves, moose, Caribou, and even several grizzly bears with the 220 Swift, he stated moose and caribou just dropped when shot in the lungs with the 220 Swift. There was another trapper/hunter in Alberta Canada named Bella Twin in 1953 she killed a world record grizzly bear with a single shot 22LR rifle to the side of the head. She made sure the bear was dead with several follow up shots to the brain. When you consider with well built bullets like the Barnes TTSX and especially the 77 gr LRX have very high BC numbers, are ultra efficient in flight, penetrate deep, have less drift and drop than even the much lauded 6.5 crowd and with the ultra high velocities create damage patterns mimicking much larger cartridges it is understandable why the 22 caliber can be an lethal and ethical choice for harvesting game when the hunter does their job accurately placing the shot.
It’s been said time and time again that a .22 can kill almost any animal IF the shot is placed correctly, .223 is no different but why use the bare minimum to hunt? .223 is good for lightskin deer size game within 100-150yds but as far as elk and moose? There are far better choices for game of that size, let alone brown bears.
The little 5.56 may have had less kinetic energy at 300 yards, but it was able to impart a higher percentage of what it had into the jug than what the two larger rounds could do. Had there been two jugs in each shot, the 5.56 likely wouldn't have done as much damage to the second, even though the first would've been eviscerated.
I love comparisons like this! I honestly thot the 7.62 would have the most damage with its speed and mass. Hopefully one day you'll get sponsored and able to use the body ballistic gel.
If you're shooting a jug of water, there's nothing better than a 5.56. It fragments so easily that it makes for a fun show. Still has a lot less energy than a .308 has though. They both have their uses.
Here is a link to part 2 of this series. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be as good or better than the original. 😎👍
Idk if you are aware but the .308 had the best results. Kinetic energy moving through the medium of water not only lifted a 40 gallon jug but spin the container off.
From my personal experience of shooting various water jugs with different calibers is that the bullet type makes a huge difference, had the 7.62/51 - 308 cartridges been soft points, or the like, you'd have seen much more damage. The hollow point used here is a target orientated round, not an expanding hollow point. Having said that the smaller 223 round di far more than expected, but ultimately it's about transferring the energy from the bullet to the target and the 7.62/308 rounds powered through, where as the 223 dumped more energy into the water and jug, despite being the less powerful round.
Thanks for watching the video and for sharing your ideas. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but have been busy producing the sequel to this vid. Here is the link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html I do plan on different types of ammo for each like you suggested. stay tuned. 👍
That was pretty amazing to see. Definitely, not what I was expecting. That 147 grain and the 223 were exceptional rounds! I was really surprised at how explosive the .223 was at that distance. Thanks for the video! Hope to see more of them!
Just wanted to send a message to let you know that the sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is the link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be beneficial. 🙂👍
Just wanted to send a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is a link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope that you will find it to be or par with or better than the original. 🙂
Similar test were done in the 1960's during the military testing of the 5.56 round compared to the standard 7.62x51 M14 round. The evolution of the testing resulted in our military adopting the 5.56 and Mr. Stoner's M16 rifle over the standard M14 for service in Vietnam. Our military still uses some M14's in special applications & the 7.62x51 is still in use by our military in the " squad automatic rifles" and it is still in service all over the world as the 7.62NATO round.
If the cap stayed on for the .308 it would have been the same results as the 7.62x51. If you had left the cap off the results would be the holes left behind.
I think it was PO Ackley who first introduced us to the power of small projectiles at very high velocities some 70 or so years ago. People scoffed when he told of the power of the 220 swift. Too bad he didn't have today's bullets to work with.
Excellent video with a very well done testing protocol. The results belie what the figures on paper would suggest. I have a newfound respect for the 77gr 5.56. While others have pointed out that soft points in the other two calibers might have produced different results, there’s no denying the explosive power of the 5.56 at 300 yards. Thank you for your excellent testing work.
@Jeffwaltonbooks894. Thank you for your encouraging words. Much appreciated. Wanted to reply sooner but have been working on the sequel to this video which was recently completed. Here is a link to part 2. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find the sequel to be on par with or better than the original. Thanks 👍
Great job showing at distance difference between these two calibers. Not sure I was expecting that for an outcome, but it gives me mad respect for the 556. Surprisingly, this is exactly the kind of experiment I was hoping to see done. Picked up some 7.62x51 service grade M118LR recently so I can do a 200-yard sighting on my SFAR. Did well on ball ammo at 100 yards..working on putting out a short video in a couple days.
Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated. The results were more impressive in person, especially when being able to see the hits through the scope. The camera can only do so much to convey what really happened…
Also, have you upgraded the trigger yet in your sfar to help with down range accuracy…. Without the benefit of a better trigger (on each rifle) I would not have been able to make those shots at 300…
@@outdooradventures1696 Time will tell after I shoot at distance. The trigger is light enough that it certainly makes it easier for accuracy, which is usually my biggest handicap, considering I have a muscle disorder. I fear that my biggest setback was getting a 1x6 scope. Should have went for more magnification. Keep up with the videos if you enjoy doing so. You did well, a lot of work and planning. I'll have to check out your other ones.
Here is a link to another vid with similar testing at 300 yards on 5 gallon water jugs. Hope is helps. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ipPiTKWHXuM.html
On the first shot, the cap popped off. On the other two, the cap stayed in place, allowing for more internal pressure. I would like the see a "re-shoot" of the first round, to see if the cap stays on, and if the explosion would indeed be similar.
@vincentrobinette1507 Thanks for taking the time to watch the video and to share your ideas. Wanted to reply sooner but was making a sequel to this vid that addressed the points you raised. Here is a link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be beneficial. 🙂👍
It certainly shows what damage that a hollow point heavy for caliber bullet will do in the 223. I am more amazed at with 147 grain ball round did as compared to the two hollow-point rounds. For me it's 308 all day, and that really opened my eyes as to what the ball round did compared to hollow points. I have a lot more confidence in my 308 with 147 grain ball ammo. Great video
Keep in mind, Open Tip Match (OTP) rounds do not function like a traditional hollow point. The open tip is to help with the flight of the round, but doesn't cause expansion. You need a hunting projectile usually for expansion in rifle rounds. Using a soft tip or one of the polymer tip hunting rounds would have had a more energy transfer into the jug and a bigger show. The first round just zipped through the jug, based on that exit hole.
@@jasonk.3182 Now try that experiment with a 243 Winchester and a varmint round. A 55gr bullet out of a 243 is pushing 4000 fps. Hit a water jug with a 243 using a 55 gr Sierra Blitz King and you time the jug for hang time, lol....
@Netravler1, Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and for your enthusiasm. Wanted to respond sooner but was working on the sequel to this vid. Here is the link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be on par with or better than the original.🙂👍
After past conversation I've had and being in support of the 556, I am extremely impressed. I knew the 556 was excellent but not to this extreme. Blown away just doesn't seem to cover it. Thanks for demonstration
That is incredible and almost unbelievable. What the smaller faster bullet did. I am blown away. I literally thought perhaps there'd be a little less damage with the smaller one. But you know it would do okay. I can't even imagine it's weird.
High velocity and bullet fragmentation generate a more explosive wound channel or water displacement with the smaller caliber but when it comes to game animals where bone and flesh absorb the impact of the bullet everything changes. Lack of penitration and grenaiding projectiles can cause superficial wounding. A bonded bullet like Bond Strike or Speer Impact will hold together giving a passthrough while still giving a large energy dump. Water is an ok medium as long as you use wood to simulate bone for a realistic test.
Yes, bonded makes a difference. I have hunted whitetail deer for decades but in the last 10 years or so, I have only hunted with a .223 in a 26” barrel bolt action instead of my usual .270. I have always had a pass through with an exit hole of at least .50 caliber. I have never had a deer go more than maybe 15 yards. I usually hunt about 100 yards so never at a long range. In fact if I was going to reach out 200 or more yards I would probably go with the .270. But… my longest kill ever was at 118 yards ( according to the range finder) with the .223. It was a buck quartering at me so not an optimal shot choice but it was getting late. The 62gr bonded round (Federal LE223T3) went through the left shoulder joint, shattering the bones and continued through the heart and exited the other side. The deer rose up on his hind legs, walked a couple of steps and the fell dead. I had a friend with me in the blind witness it and when we cleaned the deer, he could not believe the round went through the joint and still at an angle (making it travel farther), exited the other side. The leg joint appeared to be no hinderance at all. At a longer range? The .223 would probably be lacking and certainly more so than a more standard deer cartridge like the .270, .308, etc. Within a little over 100 yards, the bones didn’t seem to have much to do with the effectiveness of the round. I am fairly certain that the hunting rifle barrel instead of a short 16” AR type barrel probably had a lot to do with it.
Nicely done. Good representation on hydrostatic shock. That energy dump from the 147 and especially the 77 @300yd is definitely impressive. Highly doubt all these folks running around with *truck guns* 10.5 and shorter will ever see results remotely close to the 18in used in this test. It's still extremely impressive. Thank you
I am glad you used the ruger sfar 16" cause i just got one couple weeks ago 2 outings now bout 73 rounds now in working on loads fer it i really enjoyed yur videos bro nice job
Great video not what I would have expected, I'm old so always been a 308 guy but there so heavy compared to 5.56. Nice to know if I had to run out the house and up thru the cornfields with a rifle and ammo I would feel better about carrying the 5.56 with 77 grain.
They each have their best uses, that's why, in Vietnam, where most engagement occured in under fifty yards, the 7.62x51 was far more than was needed, and full auto in an M14 was practically uncontrollable, but for the odd long-range shot, the 7.62 was available.
This is ine of the most impressive and surprising test I have seen, and goes to show that numbers can be deceiving. Even though the 77gr carried over a 1/3 less "power", it seemed to inflict more chaos, perhaps from the 250+fps advantage. I would love to see this test performed again with a true HSC, perhaps with the high speed camera guys, or just a rented one. This was a wonderful video with results that that truly surprised me. I would have called the 168gr GMM for the win easily, and that didn't seem to be the case.
Love the video. Thanks! I think a lot of guys think this concludes which is the better hunting round between the two, but forget that the presence of bones in the animal can totally disrupt this effect you’ve nicely shown. I think what it does conclude is which one is the best for varmits since the bones are smaller. Taking it to the extreme, momentum (mass x velocity) is a better determining factor on large, heavy, dangerous game rather than energy which puts more emphasis on velocity (KE=0.5 x mass x velocity x velocity). Of course bullet placement is always the ideal determining factor, but but most shots always come with the possibility that the bullet might encounter bone before taking out the heart or lungs.
Wait, what?? For reals you did an amazing job in this video. Thanx a bunch for making it and posting it. My mind is still trying to catch up on how destructive that little bullet is!!!!!
Just wanted to send a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is a link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be on par with the original (if not better.) 🙂👍
77gr at 2913 is hard to believe. As one who reloads the 77 OTM and also uses an 18” barrel, I know there is not enough case capacity to achieve this velocity . Their own website shows 2750 and we all know they 24” barrels for testing.
Thank you Mr yeates26 for taking the time to watch the video and to offer some intelligent food for thought. Much appreciated. Please keep in mind that this video was published on 12/05/2022 and the chronographing was done a few days prior. Here is a link to a video that was posted on 4/25/2022 (nearly 8 months earlier) in which the readings were even faster than 2913 fps. I can vouch for the fact that different boxes of ammo were used in each speed test and the weather conditions were different 8 months earlier. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7d3EBUEIbHs.html In each video other thinking people just like you have commented on the speed of the 77 grain bullet but yet nobody has disputed the readings of the other bullets being tested on either date. That being said, it begs the question, "why would the chronograph only give a bad reading on the exact same bullet 8 months apart?" If however, the reading was off and we use the reading that is on the back of the box of 2750 fps at muzzle, that would mean that the impact velocity would be about 2050 fps at 300 yards rather than 2188 fps. 2050 fps of speed at 300 yards is barely faster than either the .308 or 7.62 x 51 rounds being tested and would not really justify how well the 5.56 performed in comparison... What may account for the extra speed is that the rounds were tested at 3400 feet above sea level. Looking forward to your ideas on this... Thanks.
@@outdooradventures1696 all I’m saying is facts are facts. Even the manufacturer doesn’t claim this speed. Bottom line, case capacity does not allow for 77gr projectiles to reach stated 2913+ fps. If you’re reloading, you can get closer. But, factory loaded, SAAMI spec 77gr OTM will not achieve said velocity.
@@yeates26 All I can get out of a 16" barrel with 62 grain projectiles is 2860. An 18" barrel might push it to 2900, but it's just not happening with a 77 grain pill.
*_TOP-TIER_* video production value . . . maybe in addition to the target sticker you could mark the plastic water jugs with some reference lines or marks with a black felt pen marker to help identify the front . . . the reference lines/marks would help to positively identify the projectile entrance hole *_post-mortem_* if the target sticker comes completely off and the water jug ends up *_totally_* shredded . . . I have a feeling securing the cap with duct tape would result in some pretty *_spectacular_* impacts . . . compliments again on how outstanding well this video was put together . . . you set a benchmark by which other range test videos should be measured . . . 👍🏼
Thank you miraclemax08 for taking the time to watch the video, provide intelligent food for thought, and for being far too generous with your compliments. Much appreciated.
Greetings Miraclemax08. Just wanted to send you a message to let you know that a sequel to this vid has been produced. Here is the link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html Hope you will find it to be on par with if not better than the original. 🙂👍
@@outdooradventures1696 just watched the follow-up video and it is as equally well produced as the first . . . the *_only_* way the follow-up video can be said to be *_better_* than the original is to point out how well *_commenter_* concerns were addressed . . . another outstanding job on the follow-up video
Thanks for your compliments. Much appreciated. Wanted to respond sooner but was putting the finishing touches on the sequel to this vid. Here is a link to it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jyKcyXacBh4.html I hope you will find it on par with or better than the original. BTW the first time I ever shot a .308 was from a bolt action savage years ago. Still remember how great that felt. 🙂👍
Would like to see 180 gr. Core lokt. I always have to the best expansion with the Cor lokt. 2700 FT. Pounds. Very good video. Building my first Wylde. Can't wait to get some rounds through after this video.
The differences in terminal performance have more to do with the bullet construction than any differences in impact velocity or terminal kinetic energy. It is obvious the smaller, less energetic 5.56 imparted a much larger percentage of its kinetic energy into the water. You could play around with bullet choice and get the 7.62 to dump the same percentage of its greater kinetic energy into the water and it would be even more spectacular.
You would see as much or more damage on a. second or third jug wit the 308. With an FMJ round, one jug doesn't have enough resistance to make for a spectacular hit.
Awesome video! not weighed down with crappy music or stupid shots of gun nuts wearing cringy wrap around sunglasses standing in front of their Ford 150s. Precise, educational, and to the point. Subscribed, thank you!
