408 Cheytac info.
- Thread starter jkkfam89
- Start date
Re: 408 Cheytac info.
Is the guy that wrote it(Dean M.) ,the same guy that goes by "trigerfifty" or or something similar on here?
Is the guy that wrote it(Dean M.) ,the same guy that goes by "trigerfifty" or or something similar on here?
Re: 408 Cheytac info.
Its NINE years old.Alot has changed in that time.
If you have access to 1500+yards at your disposal you'll probably want a 375/408 anyway.
Its NINE years old.Alot has changed in that time.
If you have access to 1500+yards at your disposal you'll probably want a 375/408 anyway.
Re: 408 Cheytac info.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guther</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A .408 is a bad boy for sure. Lots of weight. Lots of speed. makes a damn big hole!!!
Guther</div></div>
The 408s ballistic superiority has long been taken over by the 375/408.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ranger70</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But that sucker cost alot to feed!!!!</div></div>
Ballpark figure is $2.50 brass, $2.25 projectile..which is about on par for factory 338LM ammo right
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jkkfam89</div><div class="ubbcode-body">9 years but the 408 is still the 408</div></div>
Not quiet due to at THAT time of testing there were a couple things different that what is "common" as of today. The original 408 round was significantly faster and hotter than its' counterpart of today. The rifling profile had yet to be established criteria.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jkkfam89</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just thought it was good info. I didn't know dean was involved. </div></div>
Man did you not read the article you linked? Kind of hard to miss his name at top left of very first page and listed in bold as POC for article at end of it
Thanks
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guther</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A .408 is a bad boy for sure. Lots of weight. Lots of speed. makes a damn big hole!!!
Guther</div></div>
The 408s ballistic superiority has long been taken over by the 375/408.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ranger70</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But that sucker cost alot to feed!!!!</div></div>
Ballpark figure is $2.50 brass, $2.25 projectile..which is about on par for factory 338LM ammo right
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jkkfam89</div><div class="ubbcode-body">9 years but the 408 is still the 408</div></div>
Not quiet due to at THAT time of testing there were a couple things different that what is "common" as of today. The original 408 round was significantly faster and hotter than its' counterpart of today. The rifling profile had yet to be established criteria.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jkkfam89</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just thought it was good info. I didn't know dean was involved. </div></div>
Man did you not read the article you linked? Kind of hard to miss his name at top left of very first page and listed in bold as POC for article at end of it
Thanks
Similar threads
Reloading Equipment
.408 Cheytac Dies Brass Bullets
