556 SBR's are stupid

[sold7]

Oh no doubt but I said from the get go that I owned them because I wanted to. I will never have to shoot something at 600 yards besides paper.

Steel is fun too

 

[Bypass]

Ok. You convinced me.

well thats all the facts I need, i'm convinced. Thanks bypass

Actually guys. I had a 10.5 inch SBR in Iraq and I loved it. It did plenty of damage and even on FA it wasn't bad at all to shoot. I like them. It is hanging behind my head.
View attachment 332061

 

[JDG.]

Oh no doubt but I said from the get go that I owned them because I wanted to. I will never have to shoot something at 600 yards besides paper.

I dont shoot past 100yrds! pistol FTW! you big ole doobers with your overpriced PSA sbrs that your so emotionally vested in MUAHAHAHA

 

[batoncolle]

Yeah, I missed your first post on this. Like I said, it's worth further investigation. I'm more interested in any terminal ballistics compromise at close range from an SBR. My concern is that if it's loaded with the wrong ammo, the bullet won't properly expand due to minimum needed velocity for that bullet. I've seen this happen with full length rifles using the wrong bullet design for the target.

Then see the first post in the thread I linked where he started the test at 25 yards. He was more concerned about expansion as opposed to fragmentation with these rounds, and the expansion was impressive.

 

[NWSharpshooter]

Steel is fun too

Yeah, I shoot steel more than paper so steel or paper.

 

[mkdhotrod]

Im partial to minority children

 

[Bear44]

I think the problem is bear that everyone here acknowledges that there are ballistic advantages to longer barrels. Everyone also acknowledges that sbr's have a maneuverability and speed advantage, except you. You seem to believe that these advantages just don't exist.

Read what I've actually posted. What I've said is that the speed and maneuverability advantages are too small to compensate for the loss of the ballistic advantage. You may be able to get on target 1/100 of a second faster, but that does not compensate for the loss in stopping ability an SBR has when using what I believe to be an already marginal man stopping round. I've never said SBRs are bad. I've never said the 5.56 is bad. All I've said is that an SBR in 5.56 is not worth the compromise.

 

[JDG.]

Actually guys. I had a 10.5 inch SBR in Iraq and I loved it. It did plenty of damage and even on FA it wasn't bad at all to shoot. I like them. It is hanging behind my head.
View attachment 332061

you operator you!

 

[mkdhotrod]

you operator you!
View attachment 332062

L85?

 

[NWSharpshooter]

Read what I've actually posted. What I've said is that the speed and maneuverability advantages are too small to compensate for the loss of the ballistic advantage. You may be able to get on target 1/100 of a second faster, but that does not compensate for the loss in stopping ability an SBR has when using what I believe to be an already marginal man stopping round. I've never said SBRs are bad. I've never said the 5.56 is bad. All I've said is that an SBR in 5.56 is not worth the compromise.

I guess if I was planning on shooting people with them I might take into consideration what you are saying (even though science doesn't back it up. . As I am not planning on shooting people with mine your argument is invalid.