1981 US National Match 7.62mm bullet Tests


#1

Is anyone aware of any bullet testing that occurred to develop the 1981 US National Match ammo? These cartridges were in a collection I purchased several years ago. I dug the collection out of storage after reading Ray’s National Match article in the new journal. I had forgotten the ones that are marked “Test”.

Note: PXR 6803 for the 1st cartridge should read PXR 6308


U.s. national match headstamps
US National Match Bullet Test
#2

Phil,

Do you know which bullet was finally adopted for this round?

Peter


#3

Phil

This was discussed on the Forum about a year ago. I’m not sure what terms you’d need to use for a search. NATO Dave provided the lot numbers for the ammo used in the tests and a reference to the Technical Report. I have a hard copy of the thread.

You might try “7.62x51 M118 Sniper” to see if it will get you there. If not, let me know and I can scan my hard copy for you.

Peter - Just saw your post. The M852 bullet was a modified Sierra International Match 168 grain. That info is in my article.

Ray


#4

It looks as if the bullets were seated by pressure on the points, some look a little mashed over. However, this is standard practice for loading military cartridges. Target shooters who handload use seaters with a conical recess to avoid bullet damage and “runout”.

gravelbelly


#5

gravelbelly

Except for the Lapua, the bullets are all hollow point. Uneven meplats are common with most HP bullets. They are not deformed in the seating process. I believe that the military seats Match bullets the same way the shooters do, with a seating stem that contacts the ogive rather than the point. Uneven meplats do not adversely affect accuracy.

Bullet seating based on the ogive has nothing to do with “runout” or tip damage. It ensures a consistent base to ogive length which is important to accuracy. Runout has to do with concentricity, which is addressed in case preparation and seating die fit.

Ray


#6

Ray
I found the thread. Thanks a lot. All the information I was looking for is there.


#7

I think this is the link to the thread being referenced: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3696&hilit=

Dave


#8

Ray
What is the correct designation of the 1980 National Match ammo, PXR 6308 or PXR 6803? Mine are labeled PXR 6308 but in your new journal article you call it PXR 6803 and in the old thread you say the boxes say PXR 6308. Is one of them a typo or were there two different designations?


#9

The designation I have is PXR-6308. The first lot of 13, 800 rounds have a lot number of LC80C-300S-090. A second lot (LC-80F-300-S111) of 200,000 rounds was produced for the 1980 National Match and delivered to Camp Perry in July 1980. A third lot of 11,040 rounds (LC80J-300-S-119) was used for comparative trials with the Hornady, Nosler and Lapua bullets. The designation for the Lapau cartridge is PXR-6311, but I don’t know the designations for the Hornady and Nosler cartridges. It’s tempting to speculate that they are PXR-6309 and PXR-6310 but … Does any one out there have boxes that can confirm this?

I’m interested in obtaining confirmed examples of the Hornady and Nosler cartridges if anyone can help.

NATO Dave


#10

Phil

Yes, it’s PXR-6308. You discovered another typo in my article. But I’m gonna blame this on the EDITOR. Until he looks at my manuscript and sees that it was somebody else (me).;)

I meant to tell you. You have some great cartridges. I’m not sure if there is anyone except you that has all of them. I have some of the loose bullets but only a couple of the actual cartridges.

Dave

Be wary. There are some things in that thread that I’ve discovered to be less than accurate now that I’ve done more research. I’ve corrected most of them in my JOURNAL article and will be putting together a thread for the Forum in the coming days. Especially as it relates to the M118SB and the early M118LR.

Ray


#11

[quote=“DaveE”]I think this is the link to the thread being referenced: iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.ph … 696&hilit=

Dave[/quote]

Dave E

That’s not the one. But, I think Phil has found it and NATO Dave provided the same basic info in his post.

However, I will be posting a thread clarifying the comments re: the M118SB and LR cartridges. Or maybe not. As if anyone is really interested. It is very frustrating to put all that effort into a JOURNAL article and have only a very few people actually read it.

End of whine.

Ray


#12

[quote=“RayMeketa”]

That’s not the one. But, I think Phil has found it and NATO Dave provided the same basic info in his post.

However, I will be posting a thread clarifying the comments re: the M118SB and LR cartridges. Or maybe not. As if anyone is really interested. It is very frustrating to put all that effort into a JOURNAL article and have only a very few people actually read it.

End of whine.

Ray[/quote]

Ahhh… but those few are the salt of the Earth and they really appreciate your efforts.

Peter


#13

Oops! Sorry Ray,

I thought that was it but obviously missed.

Also, I’m quite sure I very much enjoy your articles both on the Forum and in the Journal. I promise not to post links to anymore old threads on the subject and I look forward to you sharing your corrections!

DaveE


#14

Dave E

Don’t stop posting links to archived posts. That’s where a lot of good information rests. But, some of it is out-of-date or flat out incorrect. It’s only be seeing it again, a year or two later, that we know when it needs to be updated.

Even though your link was to a similar subject and not the one being discussed, I’m glad you posted it because it reminded me that some of what I written previously is in need of revision (it’s wrong!). I am now prompted to correct it.

Ray