I'm back from a recent hunt in the Patagonia where I hunted Wild Boar, Fallow deer and Red Stag.

Well, here is my perfomance report.

All game bagged fell to just one well placed shot. What else can I add to field performance of the Fail Safe�s ?? spectacular!

Accuracy, well I decided to try the CT Fail Safe when after many hunts with the Barnes X and XLC (great results!!) the effort to maintain a predictable accuracy level was becoming in more and more powder and bullets spending at the range.

After trying the new (to me) bullets, all these problems vanished... once and for all.

My load.

Ruger KM77RSP (All Weather) 24" barrel
Leupold Vari X III 3.5-10x50 AO EFR
Leupold mounts

180gr CT Fail Safe (moly)
80.0 gr Reloder 22
WLRM
Win cases
headspace : -2 (RCBS Prec Mic)
OAL : 3.3605" (average)

Redding Match Seater
Redding Neck Size
Redding Body Die

Vel : 3190 fps
group at 164yds (150m) : 0.6" 3 shots (cold barrel)

In short, both, field and range performance is impressive. I'm sold on the CT Fail Safe.

I also have seen some outstanding performance with the Failsafe which I prefer to BarnesX .....

the 230 gr. .338 is a wonder bullet...

The only experience I have with FailSafes is when a friend gave me a box of Winchester Supreme factory ammo in .300 Winchester Magnum loaded with 180 FailSafes last year.

I put 5 of them into a little over an inch at 200 metres, and the average chronograph speed hovered around 3,150. I promptly stopped shooting.

Those remaining 15 rounds are going to be used for hunting!

OK, here's the details on the rifle: It's a Remington-made 1917 Enfield action bedded in a cheap, "blonde" aftermarket stock that I spraypainted with a sand-coloured "speckle" paint I picket up from Wal-Mart. Apart from having the "ears" milled off and a scope mounted, the only "custom" feature I put on this rifle is the cock-on-opening conversion from Gun Parts Corp. and a new single-stage trigger from Dayton-Traister. The scope I use on this rifle is a simple Bushnell Banner 4-12x with an adjustable objective. To complete the "cheap" feel about this rifle, I had my gunsmith mount a No. 3 contour E.R. Shaw chrome-moly barrel cut down to about 26.5 inches. The Shaw barrel is medium-heavy, having a muzzle diameter of about .720 inches. The blank cost me about $120 U.S. delivered, I believe.

I found that this rifle definitely prefers a bit of barrel support at the forend, so I bedded in a little pad about one inch behind the forend tip and covered it with a layer of electrician's tape.

That's it.

I've found that this rifle "walks" a bit as it heats, but that walking is generally quite predictable. On good days, I've put 15 shots into a little over 2 inches at 200 metres with favoured handloads, so I know the rifle is capable of accuracy. It's quite simply a pleasure to shoot, and I've shot it a bit from prone off a bipod without any discomfort. The heavy action and barrel really absorbs the recoil well.

The range I go to extends only to 200 metres, so most of my shooting is done at that distance. On the day in question, I started shooting with a handload featuring a moly-coated 190-grain Sierra Matchking pushed by 68.5 grains of IMR 4350 -- a "standard" load used by members of the 1000-yard match shooting fraternity. That's a good load, but the factory Failsafes were equally as good on my target that day, a fact that impressed me to no end.

The moral of this story (and indeed the goal I set for myself in having this rifle built) is that you don't need the most expensive equipment in order to shoot well. So far I've been quite satisfied... but I haven't had the opportunity to hunt with this cannon yet

Tell me, do factory loaded failsafes have moly or lubolx coating. There seems to bwe conflicting stories.

Chuck

These days I hear Nosler is coating them with Moly when they make them. This is a matter of some controversy.

However, it turns out that my .300 Winchester Magnum described above loves Moly and I shoot exclusively Moly-coated bullets through it.

Just talked to Nosler, and they do not make the failsafe, Winchester does. As far as he knew, Lubolox was still the coating of choice in the factory loads, and Moly for the components.

Chuck