Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re: a quick search (Score 1) 334

I wouldn't even put 308Win in the same class as 30-06. It certainly wouldn't be my default choice to equip someone else to take down a grizzly or a moose. 30-06 or 762Russian loads support heavier bullets, I'd sign off on that.

I think there's a reason that the Canadian Rangers don't bitch about 303. If there's a rogue grizzly to take down they probably already own something more mass appropriate. The Enfield is a nice scout rifle to take down rabid critters up to mansized and 308Win fits very well as something that is better at doing just that.

Comment Don't be ridiculous (Score 1) 334

Well the real issue would be how powerful a handgun would be if it had scaled from about the turn of the 20th century. The c96 Mauser fired a 86grain bullet at +1400FPS. If that had scaled like silicon, we'd have bullet powered interplanetary travel. As for current significance, that 118 year old c96 handgun still does it's job. 100 years from now it would still be just as effective. Just keep it oiled.

Comment Enfield .303? Wow!! I know these rifles. (Score 1) 334

They are not replicating rounds like 303 in a new weapon because they are "medium" pressure longarms circa 1930. Modern metalurgy allows for a lot more power in the same package. 308Win (7.62NATO) is cheaper and better. I would imagine that all of the MMGs and sniper rifles that India has pointed at Pakistan are 7.62 NATO or something China has produced with similar balastics and energy.

The trouble with being poor is that it takes up all your time.