Email a copy of 'Sweet Spot For the 21st Century With Calibers Beating .308- Part 1, by Alpine Evader' to a friend
Loading ...E-Mail 'Sweet Spot For the 21st Century With Calibers Beating .308- Part 1, by Alpine Evader' To A Friend
Loading ... Loading ...17 Comments
- Ad California Legal Rifles & Pistols!Get the firepower necessary to survive in restrictive states! WBT offers California & other state compliant rifles from any brand you want.
- Ad Don't miss the SIEGE BELTS & STOVES SALE! The most essential & effective accessory one can carry anywhere. Often gifted to prepare adult sons, daughters & in-laws. Stunning new buckle options! Lifetime warranty. Saves on belt replacementsOutdoor Season's SIEGE STOVE Kickoff SALE! Fastest boil of 10 stoves in Firearms News. Ultra-versatile & packs flat. Family business dedicated to Made in USA.
1) Re logistics, how will your mountain community be fed if food imports from outside areas are cut off? It doesn’t sound as if the environment would support self-sufficient agriculture.
2) How will people earn a living if tourism ends? My superficial impression is that the Rocky Mountain region earned its living by mining in the 1860-1950 period then transitioned to ski tourism after WWII. Self sufficient agriculture and manufacturing never seemed to play much of a role in the local economy. While some early trappers moved through the area, it seems to have been largely shunned by the native Indians.
3) There is the example of Switzerland, of course. But Hitler’s Alpine Redoubt turned out to be a myth. Tactically, helicopters and fast rope let mountain units be surrounded and crushed. Strategically, mountain areas are always conquered by the lowlands (e.g, Edward I’s conquest of Wales ) because the lowlands support far larger populations.
Don W asked some very good questions. Posting to see answers.
Don W asked some very good questions.”
dunno. if the “grasshoppers” or “indicator species” have functioning helicopters, why would they be interested in this mountain retreat heaven?
“Bullets would be steel-cased Tula 75 grain.”
“…component purchases and reloading time and effort. We’ve even looked at outsourcing our reloading for cost effectiveness.”
Won’t be any reloading happening with steel case ammo.
It says “single-use, heavier bullets” but I would think all bullets are single use.
I’ve heard of elephant poachers in Africa digging out the used bullet and reloading it again but that is the only time.
In case you are wondering they used a old CZ bolt action in a large magnum caliber which they could not get ammo for. They took the used cartridge (I hope every one reading this knows it@s not a casing) the powder from two 7.62×39 rounds and used a rock to make the used bullet round (ish). The article did not say anything about primers but in the photos I could see that someone had put a box of matches down. So maybe they used a match head as a primer compound.
It sounds mad but it worked and the CZ had not blow up (yet).
some interesting info in here, but all seemed randomly thrown together. A bit more organization (and communication of that organization) would have made things more clear.
Remember.
Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them
While it is true there are several cartridge combinations and loadings superior to both 7.62×51 ( .308 ) and 5.56×45 ( .223 ) rounds, it is also true that one is far more likely to find these rounds scavenging or at Post SHTF flea markets than say, 6.8 or 6.5 Grendel. Specialty rounds are cool and fun to play with. I reload and do that. But for post apocalyptic scenarios my group and I stock to commonly available calibers and ammo. It just makes it easier.
It’s exciting to have so many responses to the article. Thank you for your time and consideration and I will try my best to answer the questions.
Lazy JD & SAM: ‘Single-use’ in reference to 5.56mm bullets. I could strike that and not lose any sleep. The intent was to find a bullet that was both inexpensive and also somewhat standard, along with doing more sectional density (damage) downrange than the 55 grain or 62 grain green-tip. While 77 grain 5.56mm cartridges are match-grade, they are costly. The strength of the steel cased ammo isn’t in reloading – those components are stockpiled already – the strength is in being lightweight and cheap, and able to be stuck into a hole in the ground as detailed later in the series.
Mathew: BLUF – bottom line up front – was meant to summarize the entire series. This is likely where my editing skills are lacking, and I apologize for any confusion. The paragraphs were bold face in order to summarize the following content, and I think that I could do better in follow-on articles now that I have a better concept. Thank you for the encouragement. I’ll do better next time.
Don W / Robert Slaughter: The article is intended towards those who have already chosen mountains as their refuge, it’s not necessarily any sort of justification for that choice. There are three main reasons that .308 is a much better round for survival use but once you bring high elevation into the equation, we’ve done the math and done the painful learning curve to let us know that choice comes with a cost paid in pain. That said, I’ll do my best to answer your questions because I think you’ve laid them out well. I hope I do you justice with my replies. Please understand that I worked carefully to preserve OPSEC for my team, and in doing so I cannot reveal specifics.
1) “…how will your mountain community be fed if food imports from outside areas are cut off? It doesn’t sound as if the environment would support self-sufficient agriculture…”
— This is a good question. The short version is that the population that is here today is one half of the measured Neolithic population 1000 years ago… so if stone-age peoples could flourish in numbers twice as numerous, I think that we might have a pretty good chance at it as well. Alpine and sub-alpine areas have short growing seasons but not nonexistent. Cattle and sheep are grazed in this area and moved down to 6000-7000 foot elevations annually. The grass grows amazingly fast in high alpine meadows and plenty of grazing is to be had. When you think of SHTF, you really ought to be thinking security, 24/7/365, in a 360 degree arc around every asset you have. This means if you’re grazing high country, you’re concerned about threats in high country as well. The community we picked happens to grow food in excess of what it uses and exports the fresh produce to nearby ski communities. Within a fifty mile arc, we have access to a corn mill and a flour mill. Crops are grown at the 5000 foot – 7000 foot elevation with no difficulties.
2) “…How will people earn a living if tourism ends?”
— I think this is more of a holistic question; after all, how would people earn a living in a city when SHTF? The same 50 mile arc has industry which includes mining, energy sector, tourism, ranching, farming, and small scale manufacturing. Ignoring the strengths of our team in the provision of security consulting and intelligence analysis (my background is in part 2) or in information security (we think local networks will bootstrap) we plan for six month to ten years of hardship. There are plenty of tasks to accomplish when there is commerce, but to have commerce you must have security. There are also industries we have licensing and specialization in which I might write other articles about, but the OPSEC provisions still restrict my discussion about what skills our team brings. Some hints might involve the latecomers to the ‘Patriots’ novel, who didn’t need roads… The beauty of being a combat veteran means that not only do you have a current skill set, you’ve got an entirely different set of skills that is directly applicable to hardships and security deficits of SHTF.
3) There is the example of Switzerland, of course. But Hitler’s Alpine Redoubt turned out to be a myth. Tactically, helicopters and fast rope let mountain units be surrounded and crushed. Strategically, mountain areas are always conquered by the lowlands (e.g, Edward I’s conquest of Wales ) because the lowlands support far larger populations.
— We might have to agree to disagree, at least until the rest of the series is published. While Switzerland is the model I see the closest comparison to our environment, I would hazard that Afghanistan has given our military a he** of a hard run… and those folks aren’t First-World educated. I’d say that your analysis of lowlands vs. highlands may fall short given the history of Afghanistan against everyone from Alexander the Great to Genghis Khan to the British Empire to the USSR. Giving the advantage to the stateside Rocky Mountains, along with a high percentage of native military veterans (35% or more) I think that Wales isn’t quite the same battlefield once you have to hump up and down above 7000 feet, particularly if you’re used to lowlands and dropped in by helicopter without time to assimilate. Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) as the guest posts from Sam Culper detail, would probably hold the key to security. That, and as ‘sideshow’ mentioned, they’d have to want to get up there in the first place.
Thank you again for your questions and comments. I will try to keep future articles more along the style you have enjoyed.
Alpine Evader
Thank you, Bwhntr62 for that comment. I had already replied to the others, but I think you bring up a great point.
Bwhntr62: …one is far more likely to find these rounds scavenging or at post-SHTF flea markets [than the recommendations]…
You and I agree wholeheartedly. In being honest about the shortcomings of the 5.56mm, we must agree that when a car windshield can deflect the bullet (55 grain, most commonly found at that flea market) it’s use is somewhat limited. I think you have a valid point with the .308 which is why I hope you find good data-driven conclusions within the rest of these articles. We speak of compatibility with other teams in the following articles and I think you’ll be satisfied with that logic or I’ll know the reasons you’re not in short order!
To sum up – the BLUF is that by standardizing barrels and adopting a heavier, inexpensive 5.56mm 75 grain TULA loadout, an alpine / sub-alpine centric team can enjoy 5.56mm compatibility. The better loadout is 6.8 simply by providing more smash. As I mentioned, the 6.8 team members are also tasked with obtaining and maintaining 5.56mm barrels or uppers for practice so a retro conversion.
Some considerations for you: during a bugout from a metro area to the retreat, wouldn’t it be more logical to have as heavy a cartridge as your AR-15 could handle? The probability of action comes into play here – if you must shoot, you want to shoot through barriers and 115 grains fired from a .30 Remington case (or 120 grains of 6.5 Grendel fired from a 7.62×39 case). With the extra smash at closer ranges, things end up DRT – dead right there – regardless of barrel length, something that 62 grain greentips out of 14.5” 5.56mm M4 rifles were not producing as well as expected, particularly in Mogadishu just about 24 years ago today.
I think you’ll be interested in the justifications in the weeks that follow, but I will say that it makes a larger difference as you go up in altitude, so elevation is a primary consideration most folks don’t factor in.
Thanks again for your consideration and I look forward to hearing whether your concerns are addressed in the upcoming articles.
Alpine Evader
Lazy JD – I now recall why I used the term ‘single use’ with the Tula ammunition. It was to acknowledge the single usage of the cartridge, as in, it was not reloadable. I apologize for the confusion, this could have been more clearly articulated.
Thanks to all for helping me become a better writer. There’s not a lot of opportunity for me to both preserve my team’s OPSEC and get proofreaders who are better writers than I am. I’m very appreciative of this forum and the opportunity it provides.
The 75 gr .223 Tula/Wolf ammo runs 4-6 moa from a bench in quality rifles/barrels. There are several milspec brass loadings that are 1/2 or less of that… With that MOA spread, you’re looking at exceeding an 18″ chest spread at 300-450 before accounting for shooter error.
The 75gr bi metal jacket hps are also terrible at expansion relative to other options including lighter copper jacketed fmj 5.56 ammo…
The tul is also the new polymer cases, which are more prone to rusting, and AFAIK there is not neck or primer sealant on the cartridges as well which makes them less than ideal for reliable function after long term storage…
Also worth noting that lighter bullets have less drop at range, more wind affects but less drop. From a bench at known ranges, heavier bullets with more drop but less affected by wind is preferable. But in dynamic combat shooting, the reverse is true… There are several more folks more knowledgeable than me who have written about max point blank range (MPBR) and why maximizing that MPBR is terribly important in dynamic combat shooting.
Bottom line, the tula ammo is fine for bang bang bang time at range or training, but recommending it for SHTF is shortsighted to say the least…
Brass 5.56 is the cheapest price per round at about 30 cents per round. HP match brass (most in 70gr + range) runs ~50 cents per round.
6.8 spc brass rounds run ~60 cents for fmj and ~65 cents for HP match. (+100% cost for former, 200 rounds of 5.56 for same cost 100 rounds of 6.8, and +30% cost for latter, 130 rounds of 5.56 for same cost as 100 rounds of 6.8).
6.5 grendel in steel should not be considered for all the reasons mentioned w/ tula .223 steel in previous post. Reliability should always be paramount w/ ammo.
Brass 6.5 grendel costs right about the same as 6.5 creedmoor and bullet weight is usually less than 6 grains (2.4%, 129gr creed. vs 123gr gren.) apart on common loadings. Both require similar length barrels for powder burn and brass/powder weight is minimal as well… The only reason for grendel is if you need a cartridge that will function in a .223 magwell. Otherwise creedmoor is superior, hands down.
Further if you love 6.5 grendel or 300 blk and just have a need for hunting or short range work, milspec 7.62×39 is much more affordable and equally as minute of man capable and accurate inside 300-400 yards…
Insofar as 6.5 creedmoor is concerned, almost all common factory loadings are hunting or match grade and typically begin at ~90 cents per round. Vs 5.56 hp match, it’s 80% more expensive (180 rounds of 5.56/.223 match vs 100 rounds of 6.5 creedmoor) and vs 6.8 spc hp match, it’s 38% more expensive (so 138 rounds of 6.8 spc hp match vs 100 rounds of 6.5 creedmoor).
For CQB fighting, 5.56 or 7.62×39 is the clear budget winner. For longer range shots, there is a definite benefit to a larger caliber in a semi-auto rifle, and if not .308, then 6.5 creedmoor is king from a budget, if not also overall system and ammo weight to capability ratio, perspective…
Also .308 vs 6.5 creedmoor, heavier bullets are better at shooting through cover. While the weight is more and accuracy of .308 is less than 6.5 creedmoor, that 150 gr .308 will be better at penetrating or destroying more forms of cover than the 130 gr 6.5 creedmoor.
Lastly at short ranges, 6.5 creedmoor and 7.62×39 will both be equally effective at penetrating cover…
The assumption of all of this is that in a firefight your enemies will take cover and you’ll have to shoot through cover to hit them…
*FMJ is also much more effective than game bullets in punching through trees, crumbling rock and cinderblock, etc.
And probably should have included .308 in the cost analysis as well. For FMJ brass case, it is ~50 cents per round and:
-67% more expensive than 5.56 (~167 rounds of 5.56 FMJ to 100 rounds of .308 FMJ)
-6.8 SPC is 20% more expensive than .308 FMJ (~120 rounds of .308 FMJ to 100 rounds of 6.8 SPC)
Vs 6.5 Creedmoor:
-6.5 Creedmoor w/ HP is 80% more expensive than .308 FMJ (180 Rounds of .308 FMJ to 100 rounds of 6.5 Creedmoor HP)
-6.5 Creedmoor w/ HP is 20% more expensive than .308 HP (@ ~75 cents per round) — So 120 rounds of .308 HP can be had for 100 rounds of 6.5 Creedmoor HP)
The point about all these costs is that one should really ask:
1) Do I in fact need whatever (perhaps incremental) one-shot performance gains that a hunting bullet or match grade ammunition provides given expected uses (if yes, then cost no object, but if no and then:)
2) Is the price/value of the superior hunting bullet/match ammo in fact worth whatever difference the cost reflects (i.e., is 100 rounds of 6.8 SPC in fact more capable than 200 rounds of 5.56 — or is either/or sufficient if primary purpose is suppression, etc).
When you look at 6.5 Creedmoor vs .308, 6.5 Creedmoor is clearly superior for a hunting or sniping role. Depending on what role you anticipate a DMR shooter fulfilling (suppressible fire to fix an enemy/deny cover while other forces maneuver or less expenditure of ammo taking fewer shots of opportunity [much like a sniper] when the situation allows…
“Alpine Evader” mentions “professionals study logistics” and then demonstrates that he has done no such thing himself, glibly ignoring the overwhelming issue of food and putting forth a bunch of nonsense about boutique cartridges for small arms,
You don’t need 6.8-this or 6.5-that…
You need some competent thinking about affordable long-term storage foods and a few cases of cheap vanilla 5.56mm or 7.62mm ammunition.
– Um… //speechless// I don’t know what you want me to say. Can we agree to disagree? So the objection to the article is that it wasn’t about food. You’re actually complaining that an article written with the topic of rifle ammunition is not about food.
– The funny thing is that I actually did cover the topic of food in my comments in at least one of the four part series but I think I’ll write another series on high altitude lifestyle that will cover it further. Apparently I’m not glib enough on the topic. By the way have you been above 6000 feet to accomplish all that you are claiming ‘we need’?!?
RSR: The point about all these costs is that one should really ask:
1) Do I in fact need whatever (perhaps incremental) one-shot performance gains that a hunting bullet or match grade ammunition provides given expected uses (if yes, then cost no object, but if no and then:)
2) Is the price/value of the superior hunting bullet/match ammo in fact worth whatever difference the cost reflects (i.e., is 100 rounds of 6.8 SPC in fact more capable than 200 rounds of 5.56 — or is either/or sufficient if primary purpose is suppression, etc).
– The answer is yes. If you’re trying to lose 20 pounds of ugly fat from your patrol kit. Have you been above 7000 feet sustained? Probably not – the majority of our North American population lives well below 5500 feet as per the statistics shown at city-data.com. What we’re trying to do is carry the loadout of an AR-15 with the reduced weight that implies while getting the best bang for the buck across the board with an entire logistics chain built upon escape and evasion. Because we have succeeded in this we share our findings with the survivalblog.com users.
– It’s all well and good to disagree but I think you’re missing the key point here which is that everything we do is at altitude. I didn’t hear any of your conversation mentioning this critical point that I was very clear about. Do you have any experience in combat in the mountains? Do you have any experience above 6000 feet backpacking?