.338br

Jackie,
What about using a left hand twist barrel? Do you think it would offset the torque of the gun and the way it rides the bags/rests? We've made a total of 4 barrels in .308 and left hand twist. A couple for a bench shooter but haven't heard anything back yet.

Also made a couple for George at GA Precision to try for tactical type guns. He has shot them and has noticed it torque differently and he said the accuracy was just as good as the right hand twist (which we knew it wouldn't be any different) but these we're not set up as a bench guns but tactical guns.

I guess the theory is that for a Right Handed shooter the gun would torque into you and ride the bags better possibly. What do you think?

Later, Frank
 
My concern with a left twist is that it would have a tendency to loosen the barrel if it was not torqued sufficently.
 
John, I don't see it being a problem. Virtually all of the .303 British barrels we're left hand twist. I've got two originals and one custom on my guns. Also the couple that GA put on there haven't been any problems.

I would agree with you that you probably have to pay a little more attention to what you torque it on to.

I've also seen right hand twist barrels come loose. Just saw one last year at a match. .308 win. Palma rifle. The guys groups where going all over the place. Ended up finding out the barrel became loose on the receiver. Go figure. Don't know how or why it happened and it had been on the same receiver for two seasons. How it became loose I don't know but it was loose. You could turn it by hand.

Later, Frank
 
Frank

I would think it would be a "six is one, half dozen the other" thing. The Rifle would simply torque in another direction. And instead of bullets tending to rise in the right to left condition, and go down in the left to right, the opposite would happen.
It is amazing how the 1-17 twist tames a typical 30BR or 30PPC. Mine just comes straight back in the bags with no ill affects of torque at all.
The "twenty something twist" that Randy proposes would probably have the same affect in a larger caliber.........jackie
 
greg said:
VfS should be limited to .30 caliber.
Click to expand...

Well since it is VARMINT for Score and not BIG GAME for score why not limit it to 25 caliber???

I have always thought that it might be interesting to have a seperate class called
Dangerous Game for Score where the minimum diameter would be .37 with a mnimum case capacity equal to the .458 Lott. and 1 x optics.

Of course I wouldn't shoot the thing but it would be fun to watch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
naw limit it to less than 25 caliber....(eliminate that 25 cal heck has....)lol...

sorry but in todays world varmits are shot with 30 cal....so no way to limit it to less than what is in current use.


mike
 
The Name

I suppose they call it Varmint for Score because the class uses what is a legal IBS Light or Heavy Varmint Rifle.
Why they originolly called these two classes "Varmint Rifles" is (I suppose), an attempt to have some relationship with what the "civilian world" would be shooting. They were real concerned about that back then.
We would hope have gotten past that now. The concept of "accuracy for accuracies sake" tends to be the governing factor in todays Benchrest.........jackie
 
Frank, with there being NO suitable jackets (either quality or, length) available, short/linght .338 caliber bullets are not on my RADAR screen!:eek::D
Perhaps the good folks at SPEER have something in the works! Now, for a .338 caliber bullet, as described in my last post (up to approximately 1.05" long), a 1:22" twist is NOT "slow", but rather JUST RIGHT -in Std. conditions, at sea-level, a 1:21.9" twist would impart Sg of 1.5! :) Again, unless Rory knows of something in the "skunk works", at SPEER, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting of short/light .338 caliber bullets! :eek: :D

Do I think that Jackie's post is correct - that in a HV rig, recoil could be managable - absolutely! And, with BR quality jackes, why wouldn't the math hold up? :) RG
 
Actually I have been thinking about a .358 based on a slightly larger capacity case than the 30BR (maybe 6.5x47 Lapua based). It would seem to offer a reasonable compromise between too much recoil, and too little velocity.

I was thinking about a bullet in the 140 to 150 grain range. Some of you may recall that Remington made a 150 grain spitzer in .358 for a good many years (used it in the 35 Rem, and maybe others). I used some of them in a 35 caliber wildcat that I designed many years ago (although I mainy used the 180 Speer FP, 220 Speer FP, and 200 Sierra RN).

I believe, based only on empirical data, that the larger calibers are easier to tune, hold tune better, and are less sensitive to minor weight and jacket variations. Remember, I am not saying this is a fact, and Randy or other custom bullet makers would have much better insight than I do (maybe they will chime in here). That said, if I could get decent .358 bullets, I would be testing one right now ;) :D.

Jim
 
If the required 338 jackets and barrels don't actually exist yet why would anybody choose to stop at 338 calibre and limit yourself to a 0.030 gain over the 30BR ?

If the whole point is just to punch out a bigger hole why would you not go a decent step over a 30 cal ? The 30 had a 0.065 gain over the 6mm so why not go that step again, more or less.

375BR has a nice ring to it, as does 375 x 47 Lapua or a short version of same. Or is there some calibre limit in place already ???

Easier yet would be to make the game gauged at 30 cal regardless of the actual calibre of the bullet shot and then anybody can shoot anything they wanted. Would save a lot of messing around developing jackets and barrels etc etc with the sole point of making a bigger paper punch !! :) The development of a fat bullet score rifle isn't about better accuracy, it is simply about holding the accuracy to the level needed and knocking out more paper. In time you will all have fat bullets and you'll all be back at square one again.

Bryce
 
hecksf said:
Well since it is VARMINT for Score and not BIG GAME for score why not limit it to 25 caliber???

I have always thought that it might be interesting to have a seperate class called
Dangerous Game for Score where the minimum diameter would be .37 with a mnimum case capacity equal to the .458 Lott. and 1 x optics.

Of course I wouldn't shoot the thing but it would be fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is funny!

Priceless......

As with most exceedingly funny statements, it rings with an irony of truth.

-Dave-:)
 
Nothing is new anymore eh

CookieCutterjpg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Many of us - -

hecksf said:
Well since it is VARMINT for Score and not BIG GAME for score why not limit it to 25 caliber???

I have always thought that it might be interesting to have a seperate class called
Dangerous Game for Score where the minimum diameter would be .37 with a mnimum case capacity equal to the .458 Lott. and 1 x optics.

Of course I wouldn't shoot the thing but it would be fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Have no interest in Safarri or Dangerous Game, let's call it something else.
 
Whats this VFS thing? I don't think NBRSA recognizes such an animal: therefore there cannot be any matchs for it can there? So why worry?
Bob
 
Keith

Looks great for score,do you think it take over the PPC in group also.
Rudy Manuel
 
The Cookie Cutter is not mine, she lives in the US, Larry Smart's I think. Seen it on Stan's site or even here a few years back. I laughed so hard I just had to copy a pic of it to my HD. Compressed air and aluminum projectiles if my memory is any good and I think this target was shot at 100 yds, just for giggles I heard. Maybe we should go worst edge instead eh? Then we would see a string of .17 PPC on the line. As you can see, the cookie cutter above would have lots of 5's and 6's with this rule, instead of 50-5x
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top