Home› Main Category› General Firearms
Big Chief
Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
Now they list 1 in 9 for the model 12 BVSS , 1 in 7 for the model 12 VLP in .223 and 9 for the model 12 BTCSS which has a thumbhole in the stock I'm guessing I have the right one because the one in the pic is sans thumb-hole and has a black nose-cap on the fore-end.
here is the savage site and pic of their model 12 BVSS
http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/models/
The reason I'm trying to jump the gun (so to speak) is I wanna order the heavier bullets (if need be) and start reloading some up in advance. Easy enough to separate some .223 brass by make, full length resize, trim and later segregate as once fired from that rifle and then neck size only.
What .223 bullet weight is best for 1:9 rate of twist
Big Chief
Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
My Rem 700 shoots 55 grains and below good. This rifle I've decided to buy from my nephew (from the ones that belonged to his dad) for myself appears to be a Savage model 12 BVSS with a 9 rate of twist. At least, from looking at the Savage website, I'm pretty sure that's what it is. I know it's a model 12 in .223, that's all and the pic is I have to go on for now. It may have been a very earlier version of that model back when he bought it, which may have offered different twist rates.
Now they list 1 in 9 for the model 12 BVSS , 1 in 7 for the model 12 VLP in .223 and 9 for the model 12 BTCSS which has a thumbhole in the stock I'm guessing I have the right one because the one in the pic is sans thumb-hole and has a black nose-cap on the fore-end.
here is the savage site and pic of their model 12 BVSS
http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/models/
The reason I'm trying to jump the gun (so to speak) is I wanna order the heavier bullets (if need be) and start reloading some up in advance. Easy enough to separate some .223 brass by make, full length resize, trim and later segregate as once fired from that rifle and then neck size only.
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Replies
I'd say you're good for pretty much anything you're liable to want to shoot in it.
Mike
N454casull
Yeah.
http://www.shilen.com/calibersAndTwists.html
My Stevens Model 200 is 1:9. I haven't shot anything yet that it won't stabilize, and that's not counting one of my old favorites, the Speer 70 Grain Semi Spitzer. But that thing even stabilizes in my 1:14 twist 22-250. As I have said before, it isn't a true Spitzer. It's a little more blunt and shorter.
However, I have shot some 68s and 75 grain true Spitzers in the Stevens and it stabilizes them well. I think it was Pegasus that told me the 1:9 would stabilize bullets up to but maybe not including 80 grains. It's been awhile So I'm not sure if it would stabilize 80 grains.
This opens up a lot of possibilities of loads to try. If nothing else the heavier bullets will/should buck the wind better here in TX where it usually blows from 10/15/20 and up every range visit and with gusts much more than that.
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
I guess, but there are so many offerings out there I spend a lot of money and time trying different loads with near the same results. I almost think I liked it with the 1:12 twist better. I didn't have near the choice and was happy with the few loads I had,
The 1:7 twist is for the real heavy .224 bullets like 72-77gr , providing they're throated long enough. Supposedly , specially-built rifles used Army SDMs are using a 77gr OTM round and a 1:7 barrel.
The military M-16/M-4 use a 1:7 for the now NATO standard 62gr bullets , but I recall reading they actually wanted the bullet 'over-stabilized' or spinning too fast for more terminal effect hitting the human body.
My ARs , rifle and carbine , both have 1:9 and seem to shoot 62 as well as 55 just fine.
My 5.56cal M-40 Lite project is getting a 1:7 barrel with .223 Wilde chamber/throat.
I may have some 62 grainers in my FLA garage still with all the reloading stuff I inhered from my brother. I haven't even gone through it all except with a cursory look-see. I have several press/competition die sets and things like an RCBS power trimmer, plus more to sort through.
Anyhow, it looks like a fun project to pursue, like we would do with any gun, just because.
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
This sounds very plausible to me. Like I have said, I have shot 70 grain Speers in my 1:14 twist 22-250 with good results. Those bullets are no longer than some of the extremely pointy 55 grain spitzers. This is for me proof positive that bullet length is the main governing factor of stability, not weight (well, other than barrel twist and barrel contact area).
1:9 will stabilize just about anything that is factory loaded and readily available. 77SMKs "may" be problematic in short barrels, colder temperatures and when the twist may not actually be 1:9 but perhaps a little slower.
1:8 is excellent for the longer bullets such as any of the 80+ grainers, a mid 70s VLD. As stated earlier, it's length not weight that is the main factor.
The .mil went to a 1:7 twist to stabilize the M856 tracer round, a very long bullet
You need a 1:6.5 to stabilize a 90 grain bullet, or a 1:7 AND very high velocity.
In a 1:9, virtually anything you can buy that's factor loaded will work fine. Make sure you test the Black Hills 77gr in smaller quantities before you commit to a large order, if that's what you want to use.
It would not work well in a 1:9 twist.
I don't know what I was thinking when I posted this. I have since had some problems with heavier bullets. However, I need to load up some more Speer 52 grain HPs and see if it still shoots them. The last time I had that rifle out it was slinging the Sierra 60 and 65 grains around in an inch and 3/4 pattern, not group. I don't know why it went south on me. I thought I had this rifle's accuracy problems licked after I bedded it and lightened the trigger.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
The military went to a 1/7 not for the tracer round but for the newly developed ss109, aka m855, designed by NATO. The 62gr round was a compromise between the original NATO choice of round (7.62 x51) and the original m16 round (m193) of 55gr.... The tracer round, almost 2 gr heavier was an after thought.
The M855 ball ammo is loaded with an SS109-type bullet that measures 0.906 inch. That bullet is easily stabilized with a 1:9 twist as demonstrated by the millions of AR-15s shooting Milsurp ammo through their 1:9 twist barrels, the most common twist rate available.
The M856 tracer round is loaded with tracer bullet that measures 1.15 inch, which is as long as most 80gr bullets but it only weighs 63.7 grs because it has the tracer compound in it. This bullet would probably be stabilized in an 20 inch 1:8 twisted barrel with no issues, but in very cold (Arctic) conditions that twist may not be enough, especially with a shorter barrel, so the .mil went with a 1:7 twist. Since very few civilians shoot these tracer rounds to begin with, we rarely, if ever hear of stories where they would not stabilize in a 1:9.
One must remember that length of the bullet and not weight of the bullet is the main determinant of the twist rate required.
You might be a 14 year old girl who read something somewhere and are making stuff up. You could be who you say you are and the person was blowing smoke, or he might be mis-remembering or you might be mis-remembering. This was 30+ years ago. That's why hearsay is just that, hearsay.
The fact still remains you do not need 1:7 to stabilize the M855 ammo, 1:9 is plenty and 1:10 would probably work as well.
On the other hand that M856 is one long son of a gun (bullet,) and needs 1:8 at a minimum and would be better with 1:7 for the cold nights.
I could be 14 year old girl. I could, right this very minute be sitting in my parents basement in a diaper with cheeto stains and mountain dew cans everwhere....And the guy could have been blowing smoke...but then I don't think the people at that school are known for lying about their exploits, providing false information, or getting information like this wrong. So if a guy with great creds tells me about why the Army went with a 1/7 twist over anything else, I am going to take that to the bank. Or else, everything I learned there about shooting and military weapons is a lie...except I know for a fact it is not..
Kinda like if you or Ernie told me something about shooting F Class, I would stack that away in the crediable column, Even though I have neve meet you.
But as I said, You can believe your story, I am okay with that..... You could also believe in Santa, the tooth fairy, and everytime a bell rings an Angel gets wings...that is okay with me too.
As a rule, one wants the minimum required twist rate needed to stabilize the bullet in the conditions in which the weapon will be used, and no more. While I do not subscribe to the concept of "over-stabilization" when it comes to external ballistics, there is a an effect in terminal ballistics due to "over-stabilization;" the wounding capabilities are reduced. If you read some reports from the battle of Mogadishu (the Black Hawk Down incident,) you will note that several survivors complained the it required multiple rounds to put down an opponent; the bullets had the disconcerting habit of punching right through the rather frail bodies of the attackers, exiting said body with little effect. This is because these M855 were spinning so fast they remained stable going through the thin body instead of yawing and breaking apart thus dumping all their energy at the right place.
However you remember what was told to you is somewhat irrelevant as we KNOW that 1:9 is all that's needed to fully stabilize the M855 bullet under any conditions. You telling me they purposefully over stabilized the bullet using a 1:7 twist because they didn't understand 1:9 was more than sufficient gives me pause. One can only wonder why the M855 was designed to be less lethal and how many good men paid with their lives for that stupidity.
I have read in any number of places that the reason for the 1:7 is for the M856 and a modicum of ballistics knowledge lends credence to that belief.
I should also point out, that I competed in Service Rifle with an NM AR-15 for many years. I am quite familiar with the rifle and its ballistics and I used a souped-up AR-15 in .223 Remington to initially compete in F-class, all the way to 1000 yards. I know the ballistics of that .224 bullet quite well.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
That said, my newest .223 acquisition, a Browning A Bolt TCT Varmint, which has a 1 in 8" twist prefers 52gn bullets over anything else!!!
Nothing is certain!
dude, you are wrong and out of depth. You read an article in American Rifleman and think it is the Gospel. You heard some second hand reports on Gothic Serpant and it is the ground truth of the M16. You hear some camp fire stories about the M855 being less lethal, and it is written in stone for you. You shoot a few rounds in a competition with a civilian AR and holy cow you're an expert on it....I am okay with that. At this point in the discussion, I am just humored by your outright arrogance.