Umm, have to bring up the new "look"

[Sirkit]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Possum:
Sirkit, that wasn't a flame. Believe me, if I was to stoop to flames, you'd know it Nonetheless, if you perceive me to have spoken inappropriately, I apologize.

---

Thank you sir for the appology, It just sounded like a bit of a flame to me, but it appears I was wrong my appologies

[MKSheppard]

Instar Said:

quote:

---

(Who said that the .270 was twice
as big as the AR-15? I thought the AR-15
was .223, which isn't close to 1/2 unless
I am forgetting one of the wacky rules)

---

I was. Here's a scan I did of a .270 and
a Winchester 5.56mm NATO spec round (.223
loaded to higher pressure)

http://cgibin.erols.com/ryanwolf/270.jpg

[This message has been edited by MKSheppard (edited 10 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by MKSheppard (edited 10 April 2001).]

[Puke]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MKSheppard:
Instar Said:
I was. Here's a scan I did of a .270 and
a Winchester 5.56mm NATO spec round (.223
loaded to higher pressure)

---

WAY WAY WAY off topic here, but speaking of .223 and 5.56 and ARs, www.snipercountry.com has a link to an excelent editorial article from a primary source on the deployment / development / performance of the XM16-E1 and said cartridges. check it out, it is a compelling read.

also, a bit more on topic, I have a pics of some .50BMG as seen at the top of this page. in M2-ball, APIT, and / or match loads. I am sure shrapnel does not need the random pics i have laying around, and they probably chose that one for the size (bytes) of the image more than anything else. personally I think that a recticle, or a night sight, or a spotter monocoule or even a rifle scope would make a snazzy "INTEL" type picture while still maintaining the hard battlefield type feel.

[Instar]

Hmm, yeah I guess thats kinda close to 2x (but I was going strictly by diameter and not the length)
It does look almost 2x though, but thats mostly because of the length