Why Not A .23 Caliber

jackie schmidt

jackie schmidt

New member
Way back when Sporter was concieved, the rule regarding cailber said, ".23 caliber and larger".
Is the reason that everybody settled on 6mm because that there simply was not any such thing as a 23 caliber??
And, why through all of these years has not some enterprising soul come up with a viable .23 caliber for 100-200 yard Benchrest.
Just thinking out loud. A 60 grn 23 caliber out of a 1-13 twist at 3500 fps would seem like a good combo. Might not even have to shorten the PPC case, as with the 22. Maybe .020.
No, I am not about to do it. Just asking why nobody ever has, (or, maybe someone has)........jackie
 
Last edited:
Pushing the envelope for fun & profit

I recall back in the late 60s when Aussie Sporter class had a restrictive weight limit but no calibre restrictions (so they could limit the class to real field rifles), I stuck a couple of wood blocks on a paddle shaped board 3" wide up front, grafted a butt & bag runner on it, bedded up and my L461 factory varmint barrelled rifle made the weight.

It had its limits in the field though......
 
.23 cal.

If I remember correctly and I often don't there was a .228(.23 cal) Ackley cartridge. I know years ago there were a few bullets made for such a rifle, but no more.
 
Of course! The Savage .22 Hipower cartridge was .228". Don't know that the 99 action was up to bench accuracy though.
 
Why not instead look at the ORIGINAL purpose of "Sporter" class.

It was to get people to shoot something other than a .22.

Well, doh, now 6mm rules the roost, but nobody wants to grow into the new century... Even 8 years into it...

IMHO, they should change "Sporter" to be yet another weight limit - say 17.5 or somesuch, but still be a bag gun. No caliber restrictions.
 
Come On, Guys

I am trying to figure out why through all of these years some enterprising soul did not develop a 23 caliber, get J4 to make jackets, and see what it would do.
As determined as we are to eek every little bit of accuracy that we can out of a given combination, it would have seemed logical.
Just a thought........jackie
 
Lynn Standish got a wild hair about a .230 back in the mid to late 1990s. I think he got up with Walt Berger & Randy Robinett about bullets. I think Douglas was willing to make a barrel . . .

But Lynn wanted speed with his accuracy, I don't know how far he got. Unless he's moved, if you have an old PS, you can get his address.
 
Makes sense

I think it makes a lot of sense. I would go with a true .230 caliber bullet since a .228 is under 23 caliber. You sould be able to shoot 55 to 60gr. bullets at the same velocity as a 52gr. 22 caliber. The idea is great, but it might take a while before a fair selection of bullets became available.

Michael
 
It'll drive scorers crazy.

IMHO, any change/addition to equipment regs should be around the size/weight of the rifle, not the bore...

Heck, I'd like to see magazine-fed semi-auto rifles with remote-trigger-actuators allowed for unlimited... Just so long as the brass doesn't go past the bounds of the table, fine...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Way back when - there were several 23 caliber wildcats. I've got 5 different ones. Bullets went from a true .230 to .236. They were born when some States required a minimum of 23 caliber for big game. Both Sisk and Barnes made bullets plus there were swaging dies available. They never caught on and the 6mm cartridges eventually killed them all. The cases, bullets, and barrels are all collectors items now.

As I understand, the Sporter Class was invented to force guys into shooting something bigger than 224. Kind of an outdated idea now, don't you think?:rolleyes:

Ray
 
Last edited:
Jackie,
I am not familiar with the cartridges they are being shot in but I know of one source for .234 bullets, and had heard of at least one other, and at least one barrel maker (pac-nor) is offering barrels for them. When I first heard of the .234's I assumed that was their purpose (sporter benchrest).

http://www.thegunhaus.com/bullets1.html
 
jackie and et al. there are numerous

producers of .23x bullets out there, I know of at least three in the .234 class from whom i buy bullets for rockhucks and p-dogs. all are a bit strange to deal with. not up to BR standards, but great for pop-ups.

regards, tbob
 
Chuck Bogardus said:
Why not instead look at the ORIGINAL purpose of "Sporter" class.


IMHO, they should change "Sporter" to be yet another weight limit - say 17.5 or somesuch, but still be a bag gun. No caliber restrictions.
Click to expand...

Charles, I first proposed that 17.5 Sporter at the 2000 IBS meeting at the Nationals. I about got run off the hill at Painted Post!!

I still think it is a good idea. 17.5 pounds, two piece rests only, must be "stocked", etc. This would open up a whole new field of action/scope/cartridge development.
 
JerrySharrett said:
Charles, I first proposed that 17.5 Sporter at the 2000 IBS meeting at the Nationals. I about got run off the hill at Painted Post!!

I still think it is a good idea. 17.5 pounds, two piece rests only, must be "stocked", etc. This would open up a whole new field of action/scope/cartridge development.
Click to expand...

Problem is that we've got a LOT of folks who are averse to change... In the discipline of the firearms world that is supposed to be the testbed of accuracy enhancements.
 
Apples and oranges

We compete under a set of rules. Rules that offer us some assurance that we know what we're up against when we leave home for a match.

For the experimenters, we have the unlimited class.

That said, I ask the question:

What new class would end the thought that rules interfere with the "test bed" of accuracy enhancement?

Mull that question over and you'll surely end up with something like the unlimited class. Anything less and you're interfering with the "test bed".

Jackie - I don't know why but the thought intrigues me. The PPC is "best" but what makes it best. Perhaps a half thou or two in bore diameter either way would be better. Hundreds of barrels and hundreds of rifles later we would know.
 
We are making a couple of barrels for a guy right now in .234 cal, .2280 X .2340
are the bore and groove sizes. I will be very interested to see how it shoots. When he gets them on and tests them I will post some results.

Paul Tolvstad
Rock Creek Barrels
 
.228 bore

Would a .228 bore not qualitify for a .23 or larger bore in sporster class?

My thoughts would be a .230 bore with .236 groove.

Larry Sivils
 
Semantics

The rule says "not less than 23 caliber".
Here is the semantics of the situation. Just what is the definition of "caliber".
The official definition is three fold,
1, The diameter of a bullet or projectile.
2, the diameter of the bore of a Rifle Barrel
3, the inside diameter of a tube or cylinder.

The criticle area would be what is the official term in a barrel as it pretains to the "bore". Most barrel makers, (I think), use the term "bore" to describe the land diameter. If it is the land diameter, then that has to be larger than .230. Which of course, mandate the groove diameter be about .236. If it is the groove diameter, then that has to be over .230, which would make the land diameter smaller, but would be a moot point.
Of course, using the definition as it pretains to the bullet would negate this., as a .23 caliber bullet would be that, .230, and that ,I assume, would be fired in a Riflewith a groove diameter of .230.

Sounds really ridiculous, huh. But, you can see where you can run into problems when dealing with a few thousanths one way or the other.
Of course,the general consensus is that the entire idea was to just have shooters to be required to shoot something larger than a 22. But, would not it be a shame if a shooter spent all of the time and resources developing a .23 caliber to satisfy the Sporter Rule, only to find he missed it by .003 inch.

The entire purpose of this thread was not to re-new the old "Sporter is ridiculous" arguement,it was to simply ask why no one had bothered to build a true .23 caliber specifically for the class, since it would be legal.

Mike Ratigan says that shooting his 22 is like "legalized cheating". .23 would be sort of a compromise, say, "almost cheating"........jackie
 
Okay.

It's all about making sure that people shoot something than a .222.

Now where's the ol' Wayback Machine?

As for Unlimited, it isn't really unlimited. They should allow anything that'll fit on a bench that won't overly disturb other shooters - meaning magazines, clampin' the sucker down if necessary, a remote actuated trigger, whatever.

A bag gun class to fit between HV and a rail would be interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top