To: george76
It looks like two new Winchester Short Magnum rounds....cant tell w/o seeing the base/primer. Definately, the one on the right is not 7.62mm x 51mm .(.308 cal.) NATO...the cartridge is too fat.(.308 cal.)
42 posted on
08/15/2007 8:09:45 AM PDT by
DCBryan1
(Arm Pilots&Teachers. Build the Wall. Export Illegals. Profile Muslims.Kill all child molesters RFN!)
To: DCBryan1
Her fingers and head may be fat enough to distort the size perspective. The round on the left looks like it might a .223, and the one on the right a .308....
81 posted on
08/15/2007 8:51:25 AM PDT by
tracer
To: DCBryan1
It looks like two new Winchester Short Magnum rounds....cant tell w/o seeing the base/primer. Definately, the one on the right is not 7.62mm x 51mm .(.308 cal.) NATO...the cartridge is too fat.(.308 cal.)
I'm guessing .223/ 5.56. way too short to be .308, neck and seating depth are all wrong for 7.62x54r. most WSM rounds are alot fatter in the base and have a much sharper angle on the shoulder- besides, who'd have WSM rounds over there?
147 posted on
08/15/2007 10:33:50 AM PDT by
absolootezer0
(stop repeat offenders- don't re-elect them!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson