~68% more powder just to get 200 more FPS?
.22 ARC is looking better and better here...
Am liking the ARC, too. My new take with the 88 is 22 ARC wins if a barrel is 16 to 20 inches, 22 CM if 20" or over.
With my criteria being limited to the combination of chambering/bullet seating, case volume limits, performance, and production magazine lengths, the 88 TMK appears to match up best with the 22 ARC.
Just seems the 22 ARC offers the best combination of performance and loading flexibility (lack of limitations).
Pic shows 223 Rem w/88 seating @ 2.53" OAL. That's about max length I can go with a 2.55" magazine and .090" freebore/throat. Even when maxing mag length, note 25% of the bullet length beneath the top of the shoulder.
See crude pic of the same 223 Rem round next to ARC brass. With production magazines at 2.48 inches, appears the 88 can seat with bottom of bullet shank at middle of neck and still have a little mag clearance, allowing case volume to be maxed out.
ARC (vs 223 Rem) advantages are 1) can seat 88 wherever you want to max case volume and not exceed production mag length, 2) ARC has greater fps w/35 grains of capacity vs 223 Rem @ 30 (comparing fired case volume). Keep in mind the 223 Rem case area used up by bullet base, compressing powder, etc.
Looking forward to seeing 88 results for longer-throated 22 ARC bolt guns.
