338 Lapua Sniper

redleg said:
You will find RUAG performance to be better than this, and while not the equal of some of the high performance 50AP ammo it does give the 50 a run for its money.
Click to expand...

The testing WAS done with factory Ruag 338 Lapua AP ammo. in fact YOU supplied it.
The 50 ammo used was surplus AP.
The testing was done in a very controlled situation, believe me.
So I am not sure how another box of the same Ruag ammo could perform better:confused:
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
The testing WAS done with factory Ruag 338 Lapua AP ammo. in fact YOU supplied it.
The 50 ammo used was surplus AP.
The testing was done in a very controlled situation, believe me.
So I am not sure how another box of the same Ruag ammo could perform better:confused:
Click to expand...


Because the post implies that the 338AP will only pierce 3/8" of armour at 200m when in fact it can do much better than that and at longer ranges.
 
redleg said:
Because the post implies that the 338AP will only pierce 3/8" of armour at 200m when in fact it can do much better than that and at longer ranges.
Click to expand...

It's up to Rick but I don't think we should talk further about this subject on a public forum.
 
This isn't exactly top secret information. Why not post the results of private or professional tests results? Lots of guys buying AR500 or better steel to make reactive targets capable of surviving rifle rounds?
 
Actual test results from units that have conducted testing are not generally available. Specific performance specifications are available from RUAG. Their AP ammo is the best there is. It performs much better han implied above, and while it cannot match the performance of the specialty AP 50 BMG ammo it can offer extremely good penetration in many instances. Furthermore it offers true match grade performance, something I'm sure even Rick can agree publicly that surplus 50 BMG AP ammo is not noted for.

If this seems like a sore spot with me, it is. DND has consistantly failed to evaluate 338LM natures in any meaningful way. Other armies see the difference, many of our own police forces have tested and seen the performance improvement available with proper cartridge selection. But DND insists it knows better and refuses to actually conduct performance related testing.
 
redleg said:
Actual test results from units that have conducted testing are not generally available. Specific performance specifications are available from RUAG. Their AP ammo is the best there is. It performs much better han implied above, and while it cannot match the performance of the specialty AP 50 BMG ammo it can offer extremely good penetration in many instances. Furthermore it offers true match grade performance, something I'm sure even Rick can agree publicly that surplus 50 BMG AP ammo is not noted for.

If this seems like a sore spot with me, it is. DND has consistantly failed to evaluate 338LM natures in any meaningful way. Other armies see the difference, many of our own police forces have tested and seen the performance improvement available with proper cartridge selection. But DND insists it knows better and refuses to actually conduct performance related testing.
Click to expand...

The testing we were hired to perform had nothing to do with ammo evaluation.
Ruag 338 Lapua ammo was what was used simply because it was available for use.
The basis of the test to to test what the armor would withstand. Period. Accuracy , consistency, reliability blah blah of the ammo was not the issue.
I would agree that the Ruag ammo is good ammo, and certainly more accurate than the surplus ball machinegun ammo I had access to use.
 
2bad4u2 said:
Are you at all serious here? If so, this scares the Hell out of me for everyone concerned. I sure wouldn't want anyone in charge of procurement and equippment selection that didn't have a competent understanding of either the requirement or the tools required to do the job.
I'm going to say this, "Smells Like Troll's Spirit".
Click to expand...

That doesnt apply in the MoD!
 
TimC said:
That doesnt apply in the MoD!
Click to expand...

Procurement officers are often just given a list of relavent specifications and then open a tender or open purchase order based on those set criteria put forth by the end user. Most municipal, provincial, and federal departments/agencies work like this.

If it's a situation where the person involved in equipment selection is the same who is in charge of procurement, they damn well should know what they are involed with.
 
Last edited:
Quote: "
If this seems like a sore spot with me, it is. DND has consistantly failed to evaluate 338LM natures in any meaningful way. Other armies see the difference, many of our own police forces have tested and seen the performance improvement available with proper cartridge selection. But DND insists it knows better and refuses to actually conduct performance related testing."

DND is difficult and frustrating to deal with. There is a lot of paperwork, compared to, say a police force. With a police force you can discuss the contract and maybe suugest some changes or improvements. Or point out that what they have ordered won't work for the applciation they have in mind.

But with DND the buying comes from Supply and Services. They know nothing about shooting. The buying initiative came from a procurment officer usually not attached to the user unit. The user unit knows what equipment it has but would not know what else is out there or how other equipment ideas coudl be used to improve their job.

The military has what they consider highly trained tecnical officers for guns and ammo. But they might not know that 7.62 and 308 are similar. They might not know that they could ask Hornady to load match bullets in their Light magnum loads and make long range 308 ammo that is 200 fps faster - a significant improvement.

A user unit would not have the authority to borrow a rifle or buy some differnt ammo and run tests on steel or accuracy.

The personnel who have the authority to test do not know enough about shooting to do anything useful and don't want to listen to those that do.

That said, there is one unit within CF that is somewhat autonomous and does do some independent thinking, testing and procurement.

I am ex-military myself and I understand why the system works they way it does. The system is correct, but it lacks the key people who understand shooting in the key places.

Rant over.
 
I enjoyed a similar discussion on a US board a while back when there was chatter on a new 223/AR cartridge.

No shortage of similar comments about those that make decisions don't necessarily have any knowledge about the nuts and bolts. They speak in generalities and open their purse strings as needed.

The conclusion we had was if the govt wanted a new cartridge for the troops, they simply had to post their specs on the board on Monday and they would have a fully worked up system by Sunday.

Would be earlier but most can't get to the range until Saturday :)

But then how do you spend all those tax dollars?????

Jerry
 
GANDERITE said:
Quote: "
If this seems like a sore spot with me, it is. DND has consistantly failed to evaluate 338LM natures in any meaningful way. Other armies see the difference, many of our own police forces have tested and seen the performance improvement available with proper cartridge selection. But DND insists it knows better and refuses to actually conduct performance related testing."

DND is difficult and frustrating to deal with. There is a lot of paperwork, compared to, say a police force. With a police force you can discuss the contract and maybe suugest some changes or improvements. Or point out that what they have ordered won't work for the applciation they have in mind.

But with DND the buying comes from Supply and Services. They know nothing about shooting. The buying initiative came from a procurment officer usually not attached to the user unit. The user unit knows what equipment it has but would not know what else is out there or how other equipment ideas coudl be used to improve their job.

The military has what they consider highly trained tecnical officers for guns and ammo. But they might not know that 7.62 and 308 are similar. They might not know that they could ask Hornady to load match bullets in their Light magnum loads and make long range 308 ammo that is 200 fps faster - a significant improvement.

A user unit would not have the authority to borrow a rifle or buy some differnt ammo and run tests on steel or accuracy.

The personnel who have the authority to test do not know enough about shooting to do anything useful and don't want to listen to those that do.

That said, there is one unit within CF that is somewhat autonomous and does do some independent thinking, testing and procurement.
I am ex-military myself and I understand why the system works they way it does. The system is correct, but it lacks the key people who understand shooting in the key places.

Rant over.
Click to expand...

Over here luckily the .338 L transition was made due to 2 shooters meeting the RM shooting team in a bar at Bisley and chatting. One was a Kiwi Match rifleman always a civvy, precision long range and handloader, the other was the recently retired Corps Skill at arms instructor. The team listened to what was discussed, it was decided that trails kit could be bought and tested.
10 years later its in service and doing well.
Proud to know the surviving member of that drinks session!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom