Home Main Category General Firearms

cpj, who made that barrel on your big .223?

2»

Replies

  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,747 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Pegasus, you're missing the point. I want to do it just because and to prove to whoever that whether the diameter is .277, .284, .264, or .308, makes not a damn bit of difference. The bullet and the barrel are the difference. Also, Matrix isn't the only one making high BC bullets, Berger makes a High BC bullet for .277. There's more people making them now and I'll find one load that works.


    Snake, I totally understand your goal; you're .277 through and through, for whatever reason. You're on a mission to prove a point. I get that.

    My comment was to the issue of dearth of proper LR bullets in your favorite diameter. Actually the diameter does make a difference but between .264 and .284, sticking the .277 in the middle is inconsequential. Very few people make LR bullets in .277 because there are so many great ones in .264, and especially in .284. Such target bullets are usually created for competitors and no competitor in his or her right mind will build what can be an expensive rig for a diameter that has so few bullets.

    In fact, I could not find a single target bullet in .277. The Berger offerings are all hunting bullets, which are by their design, not as precise as target bullets; that's not their purpose. The Kamloops outfit you talked about is a mom and pop operation, where the guy seems to take off for entire months. There's nothing wrong with that, but for a high-volume consumer of bullets, that would be a red flag. I have the same issues with my boutique bullet provider, which is why I buy bullets from him in commercial quantities and with long lead times.

    The problem with these little outfits is that they must produce what sells, and sometimes the lower sellers get delayed for weeks or months or worse. Matrix does not show any .277 caliber offerings on their website, but that may well be because it's too new. And again, if you place all you eggs in that single bullet basket, that could be an issue. But it's you project.

    As for the cartridge itself, belted magnums bring in their own challenges, not the least or which is the belt itself. The other issue is the actual powder load compared to non-magnum calibers. The few guys that I see with magnums on the line WSM and SAUMs, are a little beaten up at the end of every string and their rifles weigh close to 22 pounds. I prefer to let the barrel do the work of extra powder for me; longer barrel life, especially compared to magnums, less recoil and reduced muzzle flash. Now, I know you're not doing this for competition purposes, but recoil accumulates during a match and I'm not the dashing young man I used to be so recoil can create challenges for high precision especially from prone. My match rifle is built on a small action and the COAL of my .308 cartridges is 3.000 inch. There are times when I have to pull out a live cartridge and it's as easy as pulling out the cheek piece, pulling the bolt out from the rear and getting the cartridge off the bolt face. It helps that I do not have an ejector. Reassemble in reverse. Takes all of 8-10 seconds. Big deal.

    Let's talk barrel length and contour. This of course, is predicated by the actual use of the rifle. Will you be walking much with it or just pulling out of the SUV to the firing line? The barrel is THE most critical part of the rifle and you should think about what your parameters are and how to address them. For the LR, especially with a .277 bullet that may be BC deficient, you might want to get a longer barrel to provide the maximum MV possible. If your going with a magnum, less than 26 inches and you're wasting that extra powder. You can buy a 100-150fps with a 28 inch over a 20 or 24 inch barrel for non-magnums.

    The contour again depends of whether you're walking with the rifle or not. A thicker barrel will heat up more slowly than a thinner barrel and cool faster also. You can increase the cooling by bead blasting the stainless steel barrel. There are a variety of contours from the cylindrical "truck axle" type all the way to the thin reed. I'm partial to the Palma contours for my LR rifle because I think they are very efficient for getting the length and the weight in a combination that I like, but they're are others. I'm not into fluting but that can also be an option if you want a really thick barrel and try control the weight. A fluted barrel will be stiffer than an unfluted barrel for the same length and weight. It may also improve with cooling, because of the increased area, but that would also be compared to an unfluted barrel of the same weight and length.

    Lots to consider in a barrel and that's the most critical aspect. It's also a consumable item and easily replaced. You can even have two or more different barrels for the same rifle, provided you have the same bolt face. So let's say you went with a .284-based .270. By just rolling off the barrel, you can pop in any other cartridge that shares that bolt face and for instance, be shooting a straight .284. All you need is a vise and an action wrench. Or a Salvage.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Old pal of mine built a tremendously accurate and consistent LR rig by mating a Savage action to a Douglas stainless barrel reamed for 6.5x284. He still uses it to this day some 10 years later.

    Modern precision manufacturing equipment is zapping the voodoo out of quality barrel making.

    The machines necessary for accurate deep hole drilling and subsequent rifling are easier to come by. A lot of "hand lapping" operations are being done by reciprocating machines under he watchful eye of an attendant.

    I have no doubt Krieger, Bartlein, Brux, and all those companies make fine barrels. But companies like Proof Research who barely have a human hand touch the manufacturing process make barrels winning competition.

    Of course, I'm just a dude who's more than happy with 1/2 MOA at any distance. Then again I'm also not vying for any "king of the paper puncher" awards either.

    This post also fits me. I will say the style of rifling has more to do with things than who did it these days. Krieger is one of my favorites because they actually CUT the rifling. Buttoning makes pretty good rifling also. Remington got a real good reputation for accuracy back in the 60s because they were button cutting their rifles for most of that decade. I guess it costs more to button cut a barrel because Remington went to the often used mass produced method of hammer forging barrels in I think 1968. What ashame. However, that good reputation stayed with them for years. Remington is potentially one of the most accurate designs out there. Fast lock time and rigidity make it so. And most Remington's are reasonably accurate. And you are correct when you say that machining methods make all barrels more accurate.

    Also, I'm not going to be shooting at game at anything over 400, maybe 500 yards. I don't have a place to practice that and I believe to attempt longer ranges would be unethical without proper practice and equipment. I too am more than happy with a 1/2 MOA rifle. And that's a 3 shot not a 5 shot group. I've had ONE rifle capable of or at least on a few occasions delivering a 5 shot half minute group.

    I think the top barrel makers get their reputation from QC more than actual production practices. Also, they may keep their equipment in better condition so their barrels are more consistent.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,747 Senior Member
    There are essentially 4 methods of rifling a barrel and one of them is no longer used much at all. That method is called broaching and that's what was used in WWII to rifle the barrel of rifles.

    Button rifling is fast; the button gets pushed once through the barrel and the lands and grooves are done. I have a couple of match grade button rifled barrels and they are very good indeed.

    Cut rifling is what Krieger has always used and it takes time to rifle a barrel, multiple passes are needed but introduces no stress to the barrel, unlike button-rifling. Krieger is my brand of choice also and I have several Kriegers for my match rifle. I've never had a bad Krieger, never heard of one either. The only issue with Krieger is that the lead time is still multiple months.

    Cold Hammer Forged is very fast and can be exceedingly precise also. The equipment is horribly expensive so it's used by big shops like Ruger, CZ, Remington, Colt, FN and others. Lots of people prefer CHF because they believe the metal has been more work hardened and they believe the barrels last longer because of that. I know that when Ruger went to CHF, the barrels in their rifles got a lot better than what they were before. CHF can be hit or miss, but the technology had improved a great deal.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    I would contend the reason .270 Win has never been popular as a LR caliber has less to do with the .277 diameter and more to do with the cartridge as a whole.

    .270 Win has always been a long action cartridge. .30 cal only hit a huge civilian popularity with LR shooting as .308Win, thereby spurring adaptation and innovation of other short action calibers in the Remington and Winchester push feed action types and here we are today.

    Same goes for .280 Rem. Never a solid short action adaptation like had occurred with the .30-06 to the .308. With a couple exceptions like some fleeting 7mm bench rest calibers.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,747 Senior Member
    Interesting thoughts.

    The .308 Winchester has a whole long range shooting discipline built around it called Palma. Actually Palma competitions go back to the 1870s using muzzleloaders to 1000 yards between USA, Canada, England, Australia, etc, but that all disappeared around WWII. It was reborn in Canada in 1966, all centered on the .308 Winchester using a 155gr bullet. The 30-06 was used for a long time at Camp Perry in long range competition, but it was supplanted by the .308 Winchester around the same time Palma was reborn and it kicked the 06's butt so hard, they had to shrink the targets. In Service Rifle, the M14 ruled for a while until the US Army came with their M16s and match ammo and wrote "fin" to the M14's dominance in that discipline. The .308 kept on going for LR and has expanded its reach with heavier and highly refined bullets.

    It is important to understand the role competition plays in firearms development. I used to shoot fullbore LR in the early 80s and the ammo, bullets and sights that we had then pale in comparison to what we have now. The development of the .223/5.56 for longer range occurred in the military when they mated a 77gr Sierra Match King, a target bullet, with the 5.56 and got the Mk 262. They redid the .308 sniper ammo, producing the M118LR that uses a 175gr Sierra Match King, yet another target bullet.

    Now everybody wants a "sniper rifle" and is hankering for a .308 of some kind. Witness the resurgence of the AR-10 and its many copycats.

    The .308 was never a really good LR caliber for rifles that you can actually hunt with or just even carry around. In a 24 inch barrel, it has troubles much past 800 yards, even with the 175gr bullet. To get repeatable, dependable accuracy at 1000 yards with a .308, you need a long barrel and good bullets; the 175SMK is bottom of the barrel for that.

    More recently, competitors came up with the 6.5 Creedmoor as a follow on to the .308. You get impressive ballistics with that cartridge out of a 24 inch barrel. Much superior to the equivalent .308 rifle. Let's see if the military gets anything from this.

    The .270 will never amount to anything at Long Range, there's just too much existing at 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm and .30 cal; the .277 simply doesn't bring anything to the game that isn't already there. I admire Snake for doing his thing; he does have one thing going for him. That rifle will be unique.
  • Farm Boy DeuceFarm Boy Deuce Senior Member Posts: 6,083 Senior Member
    Pegasus wrote: »
    Intarresting thoughts.
    ....blah blah blah
    The .308 was never a really good LR caliber for rifles that you can actually hunt with or just even carry around. In a 24 inch barrel, it has troubles much past 800 yards, even with the 175gr bullet. To get repeatable, dependable accuracy at 1000 yards with a .308, you need a long barrel and good bullets; the 175SMK is bottom of the barrel for that.

    ....blah blah blah


    Maybe you missed this thread.
    http://forums.gunsandammo.com/showthread.php?33150-1-400-yards-with-the-308-Winchester

    Maybe you skipped over it because it doesn't fit your regurgitated holier than thou drivel.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    I'm familiar with Palma.

    I stand by my assertion that the common adaptation of short action cartridges to competition shooting is the reason no long actions are used, save specialty events using 300WM AND 7mmRM and the like.

    The 175SMK developed for the M118LR in the 90s was the largest leap forward for the caliber, I think. The Berger 185 Juggernaut is excellent in my 1:12, 24" FN PBR. It's a CRF rifle so it's not fit to be a precision rifle, or so I read somewhere...
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,747 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    I'm familiar with Palma.

    I stand by my assertion that the common adaptation of short action cartridges to competition shooting is the reason no long actions are used, save specialty events using 300WM AND 7mmRM and the like.

    The 175SMK developed for the M118LR in the 90s was the largest leap forward for the caliber, I think. The Berger 185 Juggernaut is excellent in my 1:12, 24" FN PBR. It's a CRF rifle so it's not fit to be a precision rifle, or so I read somewhere...

    I don't disagree with you assertion. Yes, competitive shooters will favor a short action over a long one, provided they can fit the cartridge in, which is also another reason they favor WSM over regular magnums when they go to the dark side, and anything based on a .308 Win as opposed to the 30-06, just as you stated.

    The Berger Jug was a great bullet in its day. Lots of people used them in F-TR and many still do. As you would expect, the state of the art has moved on size; first to the hybrids from Berger and then they introduced the 200-20X series, or some such. I moved to the 210JLK a few years back.

    The fun part with the heavies was some issues with elevation but that was conquered in time and now they dominate at 1000 yards.

    As for the CRF vs the PF for a pure match rifle, there are two reasons for choosing a push feed over a controlled round feed: 1- in a CRF, you most load from the magazine and that can be a pain because in NRA competition, everything is single round load and 2- the CRF by its design must have a slot open at the bottom so the cartridge can feed into the bolt face and it has an awfully big extractor claw. These two things create offsets for the cartridge in the chamber. It doesn't mean you can have a precise CRF rifle, but it's easier to make a PF rifle precise. It all depends on the requirements here.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,747 Senior Member
    Farm Boy Deuce, when you're spouting your hateful prose, and trying to quote me, please refrain from introducing spelling mistakes in the portion that you quote, lest you become known as Farm Boy Dunce.
  • Farm Boy DeuceFarm Boy Deuce Senior Member Posts: 6,083 Senior Member
    Pegasus wrote: »
    Farm Boy Deuce, when you're spouting your hateful prose, and trying to quote me, please refrain from introducing spelling mistakes in the portion that you quote, lest you become known as Farm Boy Dunce.

    Meh. I have been called worse by better than you.

    No hate on my part. Just boredom from seeing you post the same recycled gun rag junk.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    Pegasus wrote: »
    Farm Boy Deuce, when you're spouting your hateful prose, and trying to quote me, please refrain from introducing spelling mistakes in the portion that you quote; lest you become known as Farm Boy Dunce.

    Fixed it. Needed a semicolon.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    I would contend the reason .270 Win has never been popular as a LR caliber has less to do with the .277 diameter and more to do with the cartridge as a whole.

    .270 Win has always been a long action cartridge. .30 cal only hit a huge civilian popularity with LR shooting as .308Win, thereby spurring adaptation and innovation of other short action calibers in the Remington and Winchester push feed action types and here we are today.

    Same goes for .280 Rem. Never a solid short action adaptation like had occurred with the .30-06 to the .308. With a couple exceptions like some fleeting 7mm bench rest calibers.
    I agree with all this except the last line. The .280's short option is the .284 Winchester. Same bullet and close on powder capacity, but they get that capacity in a short round by using a rebated rimless case. It's short and fat but has an 06 diameter bolt face. The actual case is a few thousandths larger in diameter than the .280 case making up "MOSTLY" for being shorter. I think the .280 still has about 5 grains of water larger capacity but it's not a game breaker.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Well, he wasn't suggesting it for a precision shooter. He was suggesting for a hunting rifle.

    Yes he was suggesting it for a hunting rifle, but if I build a hunting rifle it will get a Shilen match grade barrel. That's what my gun smith defaults to and they make a very decent barrel. I've got two Shilens. One on my .257 Improved and one on the 9.3x62.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,747 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Fixed it. Needed a semicolon.

    I disagree. Your use of the semicolon was not warranted and is indeed wrong. The sentence element "lest you become known as Farm Boy Dunce" was a consequence of the prior element, it was not a separate concept.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    Pegasus wrote: »
    Farm Boy Deuce, when you're spouting your hateful prose, and trying to quote me, please refrain from introducing spelling mistakes in the portion that you quote, lest you become known as Farm Boy Dunce.

    Noted, but there's a bit of an ambiguity to whether a comma or semicolon should be used.

    However, your mid-clause interjection uses a hyphenated interjection.

    Farm Boy Deuce, when you're spouting your hateful prose--and trying to quote me--please refrain from introducing spelling mistakes in the portion that you quote, lest you become known as Farm Boy Dunce.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,747 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Noted, but there's a bit of an ambiguity to whether a comma or semicolon should be used.

    However, your mid-clause interjection uses a hyphenated interjection.

    Farm Boy Deuce, when you're spouting your hateful prose--and trying to quote me--please refrain from introducing spelling mistakes in the portion that you quote, lest you become known as Farm Boy Dunce.

    Yeah, I agree with you; I should have used some punctuation artifact to highlight the fact Farm Boy Dunce would be known as Farm Boy if he kept on creating fake spelling mistakes in the texts he was supposedly quoting from my posts. Parentheses or hyphens, the choices are many. I need to consult a current style manual.

    Thanks for pointing it out.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    Pegasus wrote: »
    Yeah, I agree with you; I should have used some punctuation artifact to highlight the fact Farm Boy Dunce would be known as Farm Boy if he kept on creating fake spelling mistakes in the texts he was supposedly quoting from my posts. Parentheses or hyphens, the choices are many. I need to consult a current style manual.

    Thanks for pointing it out.

    It's not an issue of style. Grammatical correctness is about function, not form.

    Parenthetical phrases are inserted into a sentence to convey an explanation or afterthought not required to complete the thought or would otherwise make the sentence nonsensical. The afterthought is generally in narrative form.

    "I went to the store (even though I had no money)." This is correct.

    "Having no money, I went to the store." This is nonsensical, non-sequitur and incorrect. This illustrates the parenthetical phrase is not a substitute for a typical clausal interjection.

    "You should stop talking, lest you become a dunce." This is correct as the interjection is 1, core to the thought, and 2, interjected following the complete thought.

    Interjected within the complete thought you use hyphens:

    "You should--lest you become a dunce--stop talking."

    I really don't try to be an ass regarding grammar. I feel that if it was more adamantly adhered to reading comprehension would elevate and proper inflection and meaning may be conveyed.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement