Beemanbeme: I have owned several Rifles in caliber 225 Winchester. I have never fired any of them! I bought and sold them for profit. I used to, like you now do, thought the 225 Winchester was simply not capable of fine accuracy due to case design and other "rumored facts" regarding the cartridge itself. Winchester in the late 1960's made this caliber in their Varmint Model 70 of the day (as well as their standard Rifle). I have seen the Varmint Rifles shoot at both the range and in the Varmint fields over the last 3 decades and the accuracy they produced was quite notable. In addition during the late 1990's I became aware of two Varminting buddies who had custom Varmint Rifles made in caliber 225 Winchester and they achieve excellent accuracy with these 225's.
Pertaining to our present discussion though maybe this statement should be considered for our purposes. Even the best Riflesmith in the world (Fiftydriver?) can take two exactly alike stacks of the highest quality Rifle components (actions, barrels, stocks, triggers, recoil lugs etc) and use the newest and best reamers and machines and use the same care in construction of the Rifles and it would not surprise me if one shot better by 1/10" for its aggregate groups fired on the same day and same conditions! This is just a fact of life some Rifles shoot better than others. Some Rifles shoot some ammunition better than other kinds of ammunition! But to make a sweeping statement like a 222 Remington Rifle will shoot the pants off of a 225 Rifle is just not realistic. Some 225's I have seen are splendidly accurate. I know its not the norm but some 222's are not as accurate as those 225's. I once shot a five shot group at 100 yards with my Remington 40XB in caliber 22-250 (similar to the 225 in case capacity and speeds) that measured .151"! Normally that Rifle shoots in the 3's and low 4's. That brings up another point regarding accuracy (especially as it pertains to Varmint type accuracy buffs) some days a person can shoot better than other days with the same Rifle. I have proven that to myself countless times!
Let me interject this bit of trivia for our considerations. The fine folks at Remington Arms company have a custom shop where "extra care" is included in the construction of the Rifles produced there. Now these folks make a Model of Rifle called the 40X. They also have guaranteed accuracy for the cartridges in this line/model! I was and am a proponent of the 40X Rifles and have owned many of them over the decades. These Rifles were offered in a plethora of calibers from 222 Remington (and a few 221 Fireballs by the way!) on up the power range to 300 Winchester Magnum! Now to my main point. These fine folks rate the Rifles in guarantee of accuracy. There were three accuracy levels as I recall depending on cartridge "size". The smaller cartridges like the 222 remington, 223, 222 Magnum, 22 Remington BR, 22-250, 220 Swift were guaranteed to be the most accurate. Then the "middle weight" cartridges like the 6mm Remington, 308 Winchester had another level of guaranteed accuracy (slightly groups). The the most "powerful" cartridges had another level of accuracy that the company guaranteed. Cartridges like the 7mm Magnum and 300 Winchester Magnum. Same craftsmen, same machines, same barrel makers, same triggers, same quality of reamers and assuming the same care in manufacturing and tolerances yet the different levels of accuracy guaranteed for different calibers?
Hmmm....
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Just a though for all of us accuracy minded varmint hunters,

We all know that the "modern" accuracy minded case is of short, fat and sharp shouldered design. We have also heard that for top accuracy, the rifles twist rate should be just enough to stabilize bullets and not much more.

Other basics for extreme accuracy are solid bottom, custom actions and the smaller case capacity rounds.

Personally, I have never really accepted these theories are gospel for extreme rifle accuracy. My opinion was that it is the quality of the rifle, combined with the quality of the ammo along with the quality of the shooter that made any firearm either accurate or inaccurate.

Well, I recently built and sent off a rifle to a customer using the following specs.

Action:
Blue-printed Rem M700 LA BDL

Recoil Lug:
Holland Comp Recoil Lug

Barrel:
Krieger 32" fluted blank in 1-9" twist which I fitted down to a finished length of 28.5". Muzzle diameter was just over .900".

Stock:
H-S Precision 2000 Police/Tactical Sniper

Caliber:
6mm-06

This rifle was built for a serious coyote hunter that was having problems with call shy yote pulling up at 400-500 yards from his location and he wanted a rifle to reach out and hammer them where they stopped.

We decided on the standard 6mm-06 over the AI version because this was to be a hunting rifle that may need to be cycled relatively quickly and the sharp AI case would prohibit smooth feeding.

Well, I go the rifle put together and range tested the rifle with the 80 gr Nosler B. tip and the 105 gr Berger VLD's. The 80 gr pills averaged in the 4's and the big bergers were in the 5's. Satisfying my 1/2 moa goal for my rifles.

I have been getting reports from the owner on range testing sessions and with virgin brass, this rifle is shooting the 55 gr Ballistic Tips into the 2's and 3's and is doing the same with the 71 gr Berger HP's.

The targets he sent me using fireformed cases with the 55 gr Ballsitic Tip were .117" and .137" for a four and three shot group respectively.

The amazing thing is that he is driving them to just shy of 4400 fps!

So here is my point, here is a rifle basically set up to use the long heavy VLD bullets that is shooting the stubby little 55 gr pills into groups that would compete very well in any 100 yard BR match with about 1500 fps more velocity then the BR rounds.

The case is long, skinny and with a very shallow shoulder, all taboos in modern rounds. On top of that the light bullets are spinning far faster then they need to to stabilize but seem to love it that way.

The action is still used as a repeater and is bedded in a conventional way.

So my question to you is this, do you feel it is more important how a rifle is built then the round it is chambered with?

Personally, I give little stock in case design as a major accuracy factor. Perhaps it does effect efficency but I have my own theories on that as well.

With the release of the 204 Ruger, which also spits in the face of modern "accuracy basics", are we finally realizing case design is not as important as we once thought?

Sure the PPC's, Dashers and BR rounds are winning all the matches but what are the percentages of all shooters that are using them at the BR matches, very high I would say.

If one BR shooter wins with a PPC, they all are quick to use teh same round figuring that is the reason he or she won the match, rarely do they consider that perhaps his rifle is fitted better or that they are simply out classed in marksmanship.

ANyway, would be curious of your thoughts and opinion on the matter.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Well, you have brought up an interesting point.

Everyone gets caught up in all this latest stuff and just seems to get on the bandwagon.

Even in simple things like bullets, I have spoken with folks at Sierra about this and they sell plastic tipped bullets just to keep up with market. But are they needed?
I think not! The plain old spitzer and match bullets we have been using for a long time now still work.

It would seem that you can build a truly quality rifle. I agree that this is more important than the cartridge. I recently fell into this new is better crap and bought a new Model 70 Winchester chambered for the .223 WSSM cartridge.
Well, that darned thing would hardly shoot minute of pickup so I finally gave up and sold it. (It was hell for fast, but I could not hit anything with it.)

I personally own two rifles that go along with what you are saying. One is a 6mm Remington and the other is a 25-06. Neither of these cartridges is what is currently thought of as the thing to use for accuracy. They were both built by a VERY competent gunsmith. They both have shot honest to god 0.25 inch groups when I have done my part. The way the gun and the ammunition is made is just as important as all this theory about case design, etc.

I do find it interesting that a 6mm-06 with a 28 inch barrel is getting 4400 fps with a 55 grain bullet, while my dad's 22-250 AI with a 30 inch Hart will push 50 grain bullets 4550 fps.

So yes, I certainly agree with you. The way a rifle is built is so very damned important that using a particular case or bullet is only one part of this accuracy game.

Again, it sounds to me like you build great rifles.

R F

50, this smacks of the "inherently Accurate cartridge theory" and I for one am extremely skeptical about that so I guess we agree.

My divergence from the herd stems from several issues. First one has to define the distance at which this occurs. Short fat may have some internal ballistics advantage, but I note you didn't chamber the gun for the 6mm PPC. You know as well as I that the various advantages espoused by the short range BR crowd are valid, but there comes a point when you need more coal and that means more case length. Beyond 300 yards physics requires high BC in order to achieve accuracy without even considering the gun itself. As BC is directly proportional to SD for a given form we are talking projectile weight, bore size, and more powder. More powder means...well, you know.

M.L. McPherson has published quite a bit in The Varmint Hunter Magazine about internal ballistics. One of his projects is a case with a hemispherical shoulder(short/fat). Insofar as I can understand all he says about this, there is a benefit associated with short powder columns(~1.5") in regards to ignition shock and brisance. Beyond that, the cartridges and/or loads that are likely to be accurate are those with the proper blend of case quality, bullet quality, case capacity and matching powder, bullet weight appropriate to the twist and application, and...on and on and on. I think that in a nutshell, cartidges notorious for their accuracy are in fact coupled with very high quality rifles, a competent shooter and loader, and are very very narrow in application. That is the essence of the PPC's in my opinion. The rest of the Wannabes are pretty much just that, even if short fat and ugly. There is no magic formula that makes a cartridge any more or any less than it's competition.

Excuse me while I go grab my asbestos suit.

Fiftydriver: I very much enjoyed your thoughts on modern accuracy!

And congratulations on making your customers Rifle so splendidly accurate!

Using his two measured groups as a guide to its expected (potential) accuracy the first time your customer shoots at a Coyote at 500 yards he can expect the bullet to strike within about .32" of his point of aim! That is if his wind and range estimation are worthy! That I would consider as virtual absolute accuracy!

I will explain in brief how I came to that assessment of the Rifles accuracy potential. If the Rifle shoots that accurately at 100 yards (I assume that was the range he shot the two groups at) then it would shoot (or have the potential to shoot) groups of .585" and .685" at 500 yards (5 times the 100 yard group sizes) and as those are groups or total bullet dispersions then one can expect the bullet to hit within 1/2 the amount of the groups size, of ones point of aim. Thus my numbers.

This Rifle is gonna kill a lot of cagey Coyotes!

Again good for you on that fine job.

Years ago I had a similar Rifle project in mind. I conferred with all my shooting and Hunting buddies and even a few Gunsmiths. I wanted a long range Coyote and Rock Chuck Rifle preferrably in 6mm caliber of some type. I was impressed with the Weatherby caliber (240 Weatherby Magnum) and its ballistics. Virtually all my inquiries resulted in negative comments and oft repeated "rumors" regarding Weatherby cases and radiused shoulders not allowing for "good" accuracy! I ended up going with a Hart barreled (27 1/2" long - many said to long to be accurate?) Winchester pre-64 Model 70 in 240 Weatherby Magnum. Made meticuosly by the Riflesmith Jim Cloward of Seattle, Washington. Again I wanted a flat shooting and therefore lethal on Coyotes and Rock Chucks type Rifle for long ranges. I would make do if the Rifle shot .75" groups and in the back of my mind I had doubts that I was going to be able to attain that measure of accuracy what with all that powder, the radiused shoulders, the belted case, the Model 70 action and on and on.

The Rifle though did not pay attention to the doubting Thomas's (and me to a certain extent included) as it shoots extremely well! I often get five shot groups under .500" at 100 yards and this with Varmint bullets and a Varmint scope! I could not be happier accuracy wise with this Rifle. It is a terror on Coyotes, Rock Chucks and I use it for Antelope Hunting also.

Yes it was well made - the chamber is perfect, a high quality barrel and great care in construction make this seemingly (to some) not possible to be accurate kind of a Rifle indeed very accurate! My loading log shows my best group at 100 yards to be .390"! That is way past good enough for me!

I would like to be there when one of your clients bullets travelling that fast strikes a Coyote! Yee-gadds!

A bullet travelling that fast does not allow the wind to drift it sideways very much either!

Absolutely - the quality of the Riflesmith and his work (chambering, bedding, action truing, threading etc) are major factors in a Rifles accuracy. Within reason any cartridge design can be made to be very accurate. I saw a T/C pistol in caliber 30/30 Winchester that was amazingly accurate! It used great pointed bullets, lots of scope power and an excellent trigger on it to obtain the amazing accuracy!

It would be hard to quantify your (and mine) theory on accuracy and accurate cartridge designs but I tend to strongly agree with you.

And I have thoughts on other factors providing better accuracy potential for us all in varying cartridge designs these days - things like todays high quality bullets, excellent and stable (repeatable) optics, superb custom triggers, availability of great barrels and barrel cleaning products, sensational loading dies and components (powders brass and primers), bullet concentricity gauges and bullet depth seating tools. All I am sure have increased my realized and expected Rifle accuracy over the years.

Yes the "search" for long range Coyote accuracy your client was after has successfully ended! He simply does not need a Rifle more accurate than the one you provided for him!

Makes me wish I had bought the Rifle the custom Riflesmith Dan Cowen of Renton, Washington had for sale a few years back. It was also in caliber 6mm/06 and it was fully custom made and stocked. It had Redding dies and a supply of I think Norma 25/06 or 270 brass to be used in it! The poor customer had ordered it all made and then was layed off by the Boeing Company and could not afford the final payments! It quickly sold and I heard that it was very accurate indeed also.

Yes great topic for thought Fiftydriver.

Hold into the wind

VarmintGuy

I also went the way of the short fat cartridge design and for me it worked just great. I too bought a Win. M70(Coyote) in .223 WSSM and out of the box it was more accurate than any of the other .22 centerfires I have(or ever had). It started out shooting just over 3/4" groups and just got better with load work. Now it shoots 1/2" groups with a few different loads and I couldn't be happier. The bench rest boys know what they are talking about when it comes to accuracy and the short fat cartridge design. Lawdog

Hey 50, Is there a particular reason you have not made one in a PPC or BR caliber with the same care and attention to detail as the rifle you just described? If you did, how well did/does it shoot?

Have you considerd building a 6mmBR, shoot it to see what kind of accuracy you can get, then pull the barrel and rechamber for the 6mm-06 and have at it again? You would at least know how " 1 " rifle responded.

That is a real problem with all these kind of comparisons - small Sample sizes.

...

Over the years I've noticed some cartridges just seemed to be more accurate than others. This seemed to be more noticable 25-45 years ago. If you had access to many different cartridges, you could quickly realize the "Accurate Cartridges" tended to be that way with a "wide variety of Powders". Think of one and you can see what I mean for yourself.

And just the opposite was also true back then. A cartridge that only performed well with 1-3 Powders had a reputation of being "difficult to get accurate".

In the past 10-15 years or so, it seems as if the cartridges typically thought of as "accuracy challenged" have gotten fewer and fewer. It appears to have a lot to do with all the improvements made in every cartridge component.

Not disagreeing with you at all about a well built rifle, the opportunity for them to be accurate is obviously enhanced over one that has not been fine tuned. But if they were loaded with components from 40 years ago, I just doubt they would be as accurate as when using current made components.

Real nice topic since it gets the gray matter going.

VarmintGuy,

I must state that when I build a rifle, my goal is to provide my customer with a rifle that will shoot 1/2 moa at 100 yards with quality ammo. It is not unusual for one of my rifle to average better then 1/2 moa at that range, but I will freely admit that that 6mm-06 I sent to Idaho is a special rifle.

Sometimes everything just works perfectly and you get a real tack driver. Kind of like the old Chevy big block V-8's, every once in a while one would come off the line that flat out blew the others away, again, things just went together perfectly.

As an accuracy minded smith, I will say I build every rifle with this level of accuracy in mind, but it does not always turn out like this rifle did.

I would also like to state that in my opinion, the truest test of a rifle/load combination is at extended ranges. I have seen dozens of 1/2 moa loads at 100 yards using light bullets turn into pattern groups at 300 yards and beyond.

It is my experience that lighter bullets hold tighter groups at close range then heavier bullets.

That said, I feel the VLD designed bullets will hold acceptible groups at 100 yards but tend to reduce their moa in group size at extended ranges. Ex: most VLD that group in the 1/2 to 3/4 moa range at 100 yards will often shoot into 1/2 moa out to 500 yards.

This tends to be the opposite result with lightweight bullets.

As a smith, I fully know that it is much easier to make a small round shoot very tight groups than it is to make a large high intensity round do the same.

The stresses on an action, barrel and stock from a 6mm-06 or 240 Wby are dramatically more severe then those from a 222 or a PPC round.

I am not saying that the smaller cased rifles do not need to be built with the same quality to shoot, only that the larger rounds will magnify any imperfections in the barrel fitting, action blue-printing or stock bedding.

I specialize in long range varmint and big game rifles and handguns and I will tell you that any smith that can make a rifle shoot 1/2 moa that is chambered for any of the full length magnum rounds knows what they are doing. It is very difficult but also very rewarding as well.

My latest project is my 2000 yard rifle that will use a 34" Lilja barrel chambered for the 338 Kahn(338-378 Wby w/ 35* shoulder). I will use another M700 printed action which has been converted to single shot and the barreled action will ride in a McMillan Tooley 1000 yard BR stock.

This will be my biggest challange so far to get to shoot well. I do not expect anything but fine accuracy but the judge of any smith is his ability to make the big boys shoot well, not just the little ones.

Ofter that it will be onto a McMillan 50 BMG action to build my 50 to replace my aging LAR GRizzly 50 BMG.

I suppose my question on accuracy theory comes down to this. If you take a case known for accuracy and chamber it in a poorly built rifle, will that cartridge improve the performance of that rifles accuracy?

If you take a round not known for its accuracy at all, say a 22 Hornet, and built a rifle with top quality throughout and a chamber designed for accuracy, will that round bring down the accuracy potential of the fine rifle?

My answer to the first question is "NO!"

My answer to the second question is also "NO!"

How do you all feel, if your in favor of the current theories, feel free to comment, I would like to hear both side of the debate and your reasoning.

Good Shooting!!

50

Beemanbeme,

You may be correct in your opinion, but I feel rounds live and die more by misinformed humans then by the characteristics of a round.

The 225 is a fine round, built on a quality gun, it will be a 1/4 moa shooting round. Problem was that the rimmed case was not sexy and the 22-250 flat out blew it out of the water because of not only velocity but by aggressive advertising.

You also may be correct in that my customer will be teaching the yote to hold up at even farther ranges, still he is paid to kill dogs, not to see how close he can get them in before he shoots.

If they hold up at 600 yards, I will build him a 257 STW that will drive the 100 gr Ballistic Tip to +4100 fps and it to will be a sub 1/2 moa rifle, all the ones I have built so far have been.

Again, I feel it is chamber design and rifle quality over cartridge.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Fiftydriver:

Why don't you build yourself a 13.5lb version of that rifle and go shoot it in a few matches. That might answer your question in the best possible manner. There are no restictions on the case size or shape in benchrest rules in the varmint classes.

knobmtn

At what range? That is the primary issue here. Few argue against how the 6mm PPC dominates at the 100 and 200 yard line. How many shoot them at 600, 800, or 1,000 yards? It is an apples/oranges comparison, and regardless of range it still takes the very best of 'Smith and shooter to make it work.

I got into this discussion awhile back and as a result spent a bit of time trying to research the issue. Guess what? There is no "inherently accurate" chapter in any of the books I've read regarding external ballistics. Mostly I think this is so because validating the opinion with hard facts is tough! I mean scientific facts, not heartfelt emotion. There was a hoot of a thread going at BR Central and for the most part they cracked jokes about it. Wildcat Shooting...nada, LRH, same story. Other than the items discussed previously regarding ignition, little else really provides benefit that cannot be had with other cartridges in the world of short range BR shooting, assuming all else is equal. It is science, not voodoo, and a cartridge case is, as Ken Howell says, "...a gasket.".

Fiftydriver, You have email!! GHD

Sorry, I can't buy into the "there are no inherently inaccurate nor inherently accurate" cartridges. If that were so, we'd still have the .225 Winchester around, or we wouldn't have the .222, despite the short fats, and pc's, hanging around.
I certainly don't think the stool shooters are the final answer as to what works and what doesn't. I have said before that if the latest winner of a bench rest match was chewing grape bubble gum, the next week the firing line would smell like a fruit salad. What they do, they (for the most part) do well but it has little application in the real world of 500 yard coyotes. (I personally think he'll just be teaching them to hang up at 600 yards)
The final answer has to be the marketplace. We great unwashed, in our ignorance, do know what works and what doesn't. And we are less motivated by being the first kid on the block with the latest toy.

I am sure some cartridges are easier to make accurate compared to others. However I am under the firm belief it is the quality of the gunsmith that makes a rifle truly accurate.

50: I have never enjoyed your work. However I have had a couple of custom barrels done by two local gunsmiths here in Oregon, John Noveske ( www.noveskerifleworks.com) and Kevin Wyatt of Wyatt's Outdoor.

I don't buy new rifles usually. The expense of a barrel from a custom gunsmith is a cheap investment. Both of these gentlemen made me believe the old saying, "Seeing is Believing."


Cheers and Good shooting
seafire

Knobmtn,

Actually, that rifle came in right around 13 lbs and the owner is going to take it to some of the local matches and see how it does.

I know for a fact if he can shoot it like he has been, he will place very well if not at the top of the pack.

I know full well why the BR shooters use little rounds, less bore heat, less powder fouling, less rifle stress, less shooter fatique. That is not my point.

My point is that I feel a cartridge design has very little if anything to do with the accuracy of a rifle.

In my way of thinking, perhaps the most important thing to a rifles accuracy is teh last thing the bullet touches when it leaves the rifle, the crown.

This is an over simplistic way of looking at things but it states my point, I feel it is rifle quality over cartridge design that wins matches and hammers targets at extreme range.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Seafire,

I agree with your comments totally. Alot of shooters are content with the factory status quo and I feel are a bit intimidated by the idea of getting into the relm of custom rifles, that is until they see what one can do.

My best sales pitch is to take a customer out to my range where I set up one gallon milk jugs at varied ranges starting around 500 yards and stretching out to a little over 1000 yards.

I will line my customer up with my 6mm-284 shooting the 107 gr Sierra Mk out of the 30" Lilja barrel at 3500 fps. I let them find the target they want to shoot, I range it and tell them the range and they look it up on the drop chart I provide for them to use.

This chart then tells them which reference dot on the vertical stadia to hold on. This particular rifle/scope set up is set up to engage targets from 325 yards to 1125 yards without ever having to adjust the scope.

Generally the first shot is a miss due to nerves but not by much. Once they settle down and see that it really is possible to shoot consistantly at extreme range they do very well.

Usually they will shoot at least 50% out to 1000 yards on calm days if they have quality shooting skills. A hit or even a very close miss at near 1000 yards is a sure way to get a rifle order.

After they shoot this quality of rifle, the cost looks more like a bargin then a huge investment because nothing from the factories comes close.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Fifty, just to make my point, if a say .222 was built with the exact attention to detail that you outline and a .225Win was also built likewise, the .222 would shoot the pants off of the .225. That was proven in the marketplace and on the firing line. Do you not think that some smiths, with perhaps nearly as much skill as you, tried to make a go of the .225?

Beemanbene,

I would respectfully disagree with your comments. With equal quality rifles, the 225 would be fully up to the accuracy of the 222, I have no doubt in my mind.

The reason the 222 is on average more accurate then the 222 is a simple matter of rifle design. The 222 was designed as a target/varmint round.

As such, its chamber design was tweeked and played with to get accurate shooting. THis would include minimum spec neck dimensions, throats cut to a minimum and the like.

This round has been tested and refined to the extreme and this is why it will on average be more accurate then the likes of the 225.

Most smiths order chamber reamers tht the reamer maker lists instead of spending the extra money to have a reamer made to produce accuracy.

If you recall, the 22-250 was once quite a popular BR round, in fact it won a good many matches over the little 222 in its early day, why?

Well, mainly its because it was a wildcat at that time and the only way a smith could get a reamer was to order a new one and generally wildcat reamers are built with tighter specs then factory reamers that must allow for the masses.

The reason the 225 is not as accurate on average is because it never recieved the attention and experimenting that the 222 did, pure and simple.

Like the 22-250, it is to much cartridge for the liking of most BR folks, it will heat barrels quicker, it will erode a throat quicker, it produces more bore fouling as well.

Still as far as pure accuracy goes, I do not believe that out of equal spec chambers in equal quality rifles, it would give anything up to the 222, neither will the 22-250 or any of the other faster rounds.

The accuracy level may decrease faster due to barrel heat and fouling but the accuracy potential of each round, at least in my opinion are identical.

One question, if the 222 is such an amazing round because of design, why did the 221 Fireball never make it in the BR crowd. It is short, relatively fat for its length and has adiquate neck length. Why is this round not though to be "inherently accurate" even though the XP-100 action is perhaps the most popular factory aaction to build BR rifles with?

Good Shooting!!!

50

Fifty and All,

I am a firm believer that accuracy is dependent on the quality of components and construction. IMO the shape of the cartridge has little to do with the final outcome. I also feel the quality of the barrel is the most important aspect.

Please bear with me on the following. I am not �hawking� Krieger barrels, (and I am not looking for more work) just trying to make a point. I looked through my book of test loads of some of the rifles I have been involved with and my own included.

The only thing that was done to all of the following receivers was to check lug contact. (ya guys, I know I need some learnin�)

Rem 600, .243, Krieger: 6 bullets tested, smallest .200 -- largest .670
VZ 6mm PPC, Krieger: 7 bullets tested, .195 -- .530 (this gun was later rechambered to .243) 5 bullets tested, .210 -- .510

Win. P-17, 300Winmg, Krieger: 4 bullets tested, .185 -- .435
Savage, 300 WSM, Krieger: 5 bullets tested, .195 -- .430

The following is not a comparison, just FYI:

-CZ 527, .223, Krieger: 4 bullets tested, .195 -- .400
-several Mausers, 22-250, Krieger: 5 bullets tested, .200 -- .530
-Win. P-17, 25-06, Krieger: 3 bullets tested, .210 -- .540
-several Rem 700, 7mm mag, Krieger: 8 bullets tested, .190 -- .775

I realize there is not enough of the new cartridges in the line up to compare, (and please correct me if I am wrong) but the point is if you use quality components and assembly, the rifle is gonna� shoot. Also, the above shows the best I can shoot is @.200! If you built two rifles exactly alike in every way except the cartridge design, I wouldn�t be able to test them adequately. A rifle with accuracy greater than .200 will be lost on me.

I can envision a group of Winchester Design Tech�s standing around a shooting bench looking at a target they just shot with one of their new �offerings�. They are looking at a 1.5 inch group. The senior Tech says, �We don�t have time to work up loads for this thing right now, I have to get to the golf course. If we hold the tolerances down on the barrel and chambering line I bet we can get a really good group, and sell the public on the inherent accuracy of this new design�. (the rest is history)

JMO. Later, pdhntr.

VarmintGuy,

I would agree with your comments. It is impossible to get two rifles of equal quality, we are of course discussing theory here as it is impossible to have a quality control for exact comparisions.

I feel the reason that Remington offered varying degrees of accuracy guarantee for the differing levels of rifles is for a couple reasons, again my opinion on the matter.

In my shop, I can build a 223 or 223 class rifle that will shoot into the 2's and almost anyone that has any shooting skills at all will be able to get the rifle to group well under 1/2 moa at 100 yards. It is relatively easy to guarantee 1/2 moa with this type of rifle.

Move up to the larger rounds ranging from the 243 up to the 30-'06 class and while the rifles may still be able to shoot to the same level as the lighter rifles, far fewer shooters can handle them well enough to do so.

This will be blamed on the rifle and smith much more often the blamed onthe shooter themselves.

Moving up to the belted magnum rounds, and very few shooters will be able to mentally handle the recoil to hold tight groups.

I feel Remington was jsut covering their own rears to prevent the PR problems with some of the unskilled marks men out there.

Its amazing how many customers I see that want a sub 1/2 moa rifle but they are unable to shoot 1 moa groups.

Again, another reason for what Remington did was that any minute imprefections in the rifles machining and bedding will be dramatically magnified as the intensity of the round increases.

You can get away with more when chambering the little guys, when you use the big rounds, everything that is not perfect is displayed in full color.

Good Shooting!!

50

50 the next time I am out in Montana, I have to look you up sir! I would be a pleasure to meet you.

What a sales pitch idea. Seeing is believing that is for sure!

Cheers and Good shooting
seafire

Fiftydriver: I had not fully contemplated that aspect of the Remington guarantee. I am sure you have hit the nail on the head with that one!
I would probably be "Exhibit A" if that matter came to trial. I do not enjoy heavy recoiling Rifles at all!
I deal with it as best as I can but to tell the truth when I notice my shortcomings in this heavy recoiling aspect of Rifle shooting most is the next time I am shooting a Varminter of mine after a session with a Magnum. My groups in those "first sessions after a Magnum" are virtually never real good. It takes a couple groups with an accurate mild recoiling Rifle to calm my "psyche".
Call me a sissy in this regard - I admit it. I am dealing with it as best I can.
Thanks again for the great topic!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Seafire,

Let me know when your coming and I'll try to be around to at least chat and shoot a little!

50

VarmintGuy,

I am not different then you, while I do use some heavy kicking rifles and enjoy shooting them, I have my limits as well. Anyone that says recoil has no effect on them either is a liar or does not shoot enough to ever see the effects of it.

I generally use handguns for my hunting tools, some of my big bore revolvers and single shot handcannons flat out hit as hard on the hand as on game it seems like. I try to shoot them as often as possible to keep my brain trained to the sensation of these heavy kickers but limit shooting sessions to 12 rounds or less.

Once a flinch is induced it is hard to even tell its there and even more difficult to get rid of it. Like you said, usually the best way to do it is to shoot an extremely accurate varminter and just retrain yourself to shoot correctly again.

I definately have my limits, I do not like recoil in general, I can tolerate it enough to be effective big game hunting but prefer not to subject myself to more then I need to.

I reread one of your last posts and I must make a comment, let me clearify that I am in no way, shape or form the worlds best gunsmith. I do my best to offer my customers what I would expect in a rifle but have no dilusions of greatness. I am a relatively new smith in a very competitive business where the cream of the crop can rise slowly and many very good smiths never make it in the business.

I can build an accurate rifle, I know that, but I also learn a huge amount with each rifle I build weither for myself or a customer, this is the exciting part for me.

We here in Montana and most others in the shooting sport think alot alike, we want quality and value, I hope I offer my customers a heaping scoop of the former and a good dose of the later.

Good Shooting!!!

50

Pdhntr1,

I would say I am very similiar compared to you and your judgement of your shooting skills. I would say on average that the rifles I build will easily out shoot me.

On a good day, I can hold as group in the 2's and low 3's. I have shot some groups in the 1's but not on a consistant basis while some of my customers are doing this with regularity with rifles I have built for them.

Thanks for the reply!

50

It's funny but my Rem 40x were never factory bedded. I'm down to my last 3 which are a 222,6x47 and 6mm rem and test targets were in the 2's with all three rifles. At one time recoil never bother me but now I just have a muzzle break installed. I'm no gunsmith but always figure if Rem could put out a 40x that had groups in the 2's with a non tight neck rifle the gunsmith should be able to do it. On the 30 cal Rem groups were about 1/2" to 3/4" mine you they shot 5 shot groups not 3. I think there 30-338 40x was about the best as to group size. I just had a 300wsm done up and my best 5 shot group was .477 non tight neck, gunsmith did his job I done mine. On tight neck rifles groups should be somewhat small at least for me they are. I'm not going to build say a 30-06 tight neck no point. Now if I was a gunsmith I might just for the heck of it. When I started reloading back in the 60's didn't have alot of choices as to bullet,barrels etc. If you look back when the 40x came out those small group were something of course Mike Walker was there. He shot in the catus BR match about 10 yrs ago and won small group with his 222 was in the 0's. I think had rem bedded those earlier 40x the groups would of even been smaller. Well good luck to all the gunsmith of today but let's not forget what some good gunsmith did years ago

Fiftydriver: Brain training! That is exactly what I need!
I meant, with the interjection of you possibly being the worlds best Riflesmith, to be a compliment.
And after all you COULD be the worlds best Riflesmith!
Keep up the conscientious work ethic! Good for you.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Tom Holland,

Thanks for the post, I would agree that true gunsmiths, or shoul dI say rifle builders are fewer then they once were and the old timers definately added a higher degree of art to their work. Much more so then today, myself included.

I build for accuracy, which means hardly ever using classic designed stocks. This is not to say I do not build such fine rifles, just that my specialty is with the machining, bedding and tuning of extreme accuray rifles.

For the cosmetic stuff I will farm those jobs out to much more qualifies stock workers and metal engravers then I ever will be or want to be.

I feel my customers diserve the best they can get, I do that in my machining and bedding work, trigger tuning, scope mounting and sdjustment and with custom ammo if my customers want that. I would be letting them down if I tried to do cosmetic stock work and metal engraving work because those in and of themselves are specialty work and require full time attention.

In my testing I have found that a throat of proper dimension will generally always produce better accuracy results them a tight neck dimension.

To get extreme accuracy it helps to have both but when I build a hunting rifle for a customer or even a high volume varmint rifle. Those customers really have either no need for a tight necked chamber or will not have the time to turn 1000 cases for a varmint rifle.

For these customers I have my reamers built to provide a throat that is 0.0005" over bullet diameter for hunting rifles and 0.00025" over bullet diameter for varminting rifles.

On hunting rifles, I have my neck dimensions cut to roughly 0.002" over case neck diameter when loaded. This is relatively loose by custom standards but tighter then any factory throat on the market that I have measured.

For a Varmint rifle, I will have myt reamers built with a neck diameter on 0.00015" over case neck diameter.

This is about as tight as you can get without having to turn your case necks and it also will allow factory ammo to be used but it should be measured for neck diameter before buying a case full.

Rifles built in this mannor have always produced at least 1/2 moa in hunting rifles and often 1/4 moa in varmint rifles.

To get extreme accuracy though, in th esub 2's it will be much easier with a tight necked, tight throated chamber. It really isn't the neck dimensions themselves that really make the rifle more accurate, its the fact that the shooter has to turn their cases to even fit the chamber. This dramatically reduces the neck and bullet run-out in their ammo. This is what dramatically increases accuracy.

I have tested this with factory rifles and even they show a dramatic improvement when the ammo they are using has perfectly concentric necks and less the 0.001" bullet run out. Even out of the loose facoty chambers.

I have also tested poor run out ammo in match quality chambers and they still need fine ammo to shoot well. Still a tight throat will shoot run outs into the 0.004-0.005" range much more accurately then a loose factory throat will.


Good Shooting!!

50

VarmintGuy,

Thank you for the kind words but I still hold to the FACT that there are many extremely fine smiths out there, like Mr. Holland(my teacher), Mr. Tannel, Mr. Jerret and several others.

I just build every rifle with the goal of matching the quality of the rifles they produce. Someday maybe others will list my name with theirs, if not, it would be more important to me to be able to provide a lifetime of fine rifles to my customers.

Good Shooting!!

50

50, Good stuff.

Quote:

---

For a Varmint rifle, I will have my reamers built with a neck diameter on 0.00015" over case neck diameter.

50

---

Did I read your neck diameter correctly on varmint rifles? I'm not sure my neck turning is that good. Another potential issue for me with 22-250 is brass creep (donuts)into the neck shoulder junction after a shot or two. Do you polish out the necks to open them up slightly?

By the way, I appreciate your sharing all your techniques. Sounds like you have high standards. You are to be commended for doing quality work.
Ron Teufel

Does anyone think that there are significant differences in the level of precision in the manufacture of cases in different calibers? Say, might there be more case neck eccentricity on average in .223 than in .222?

Hot core,

I believe that is the same amount of thought and testing went into the "known as" unaccurate rounds, that yes they would shoot just as well as the "accurate rounds".

There was an article in Handloader I believe, several years back now that talked about a rifle chambered for the 22 Hornet. This was a BR style rifle and with tuned loads it printed in the 1's and low 2's. In fact the owner actually won quite a few BR matches with the rifle.

He built it just to show it could be done.

Most of the rounds you list that are compared to the 221 and 308 are actually carry overs from the black powder era. While they were often loaded with smokeless powder, they were still chambered as the black powder rounds were, loose all the way around. This is needed for black powder stuff but very bad for smokeless powder rounds as accuracy suffers.

If you take a 22 Hornet, use a minimum spec reamer with a close tolerance neck and a throat of no more then .0005" over bullet diameter, it will shoot with any of the accuracy rounds. That is a fact, not a theory.

Problem is that the standard reamer for a 22 Hornet and the 30-40 and like rounds is that they still use the old era dimensions because no one wants to pay for a custom correctly dimensioned reamer.

Also, few will spend the +$250 for a fine barrel to put on just a 22 Hornet or a 30-40, they go instead with a standard grade barrel or less because its JUST A HORNET.

That is really to bad, they do not know what they are missing for only another $100 or so bucks.

When you start comparing the 308 to the 30-40 and 300 Savage at extended range, remember that we have to compare apples to apples. If you shoot a 155 gr Sierra Mk out of the 308 and a 150 gr Rem cor lokt out of the 300 Sav, of course the 308 will be more accurate. Again, its not the round, its the way it is loaded, the rifle it is loaded in, and of course the shooter.

Good Shooting!!!

50

C210,

Getting neck donuts is a real problem. I had this with my first wildcat, the 6mm-284 after a couple firings.

One little trick I found that worked great was to turn my necks will the case was still a 284. What this did was when the neck was necked down, the turned section would actually go up the neck a bit. What this allowed was more shooting or should a I say no more problem with the neck stretching and causing this problem because if the neck stretched this much the case would certainly seperate at the head.

In the case of the 22-250. Neck it up to 6mm then turn your necks and then size them back down. This can cause the brass to work harden so if you do not anneal your cases, it may not be worth it.

ANother fix is to get an inside neck reamer such as those used on the RCBS neck turning tool. THey will remove the donut as well.

Good Shooting!!

50

50, don't mean to change the subject here, but regarding the LR aspects of coyote hunting i thought i'd post a little on it, as this has been my passion for the last several years. Several years ago i started getting involved in the long-range hunting game as an off shoot of the spot and stalk system i started adopting for coyote hunting, having lost a little of the excitement for calling relative to what i once had. I had a Rem. 700 SA built up as a "long-range" coyote gun in 6mm AI. Larry Walsh at Burris talked me into putting on a 6-24X Burris with the best (affordable) factory ballistic reticle ever produced-- the Ballistic Mil-Dot. Fortunately he also told me about Perry-Systems Exbal to calculate a computer model to zero the reticle at the same time-- tho i hadn't imagined that computer program would become the single best resource i've ever used for LR shooting. I was shooting the 87 gr. Hornady BTHP (the best bullet tried in the rig), and in my overzealous inexperience had zeroed from the top dot on down to 800 or so yds. Even with my crude testing system i used at the time, i still found the rig could hold 3/4 MOA out to that range on calm days.I'll never forget the 1st time i put the system to use. I was out east of Pueblo on one of the ranches i frequent. After glassing a particular basin for dogs with no results i let out a couple howls. Sure enuf got a couple responses about a 1/2 mile away. When i looked with the glasses i spotted a couple dogs wat out on the far slope of the basin. After things calmed down i grabbed my gear and made for them now laying down in a little bunch of yucca. When i got to a point where i was concealed i took off at a half trot/half run to the top of a long low rise. Once i got there, there was no cover left, and i set the gun down on the bipod, and started looking over the yucca-- no coyotes. After looking around some-- i thought they'd given me the slip. So i grabbed the howler, and let loose with one. Sure enuf they popped out of the yuccas where they'd been bedded concealed ffrom my view. They just stood there and i started scrambling to get set up. I lasered them at just over 450. I got settled in for the shot, but wasn't too convinced of the system i'd put together-- after all this was it's 1st real test. So i put the correct dot just over one of the dogs backs, said a quick prayer and turned one loose. The meat report was unmistakable, and the dog dropped instantly. I couldn't believe my own eyes-- i mean i'd shot some 4-500 yd. dogs before-- but it'd never been calculated, and was mostly luck of course. After that i was HOOKED BIG TIME, and now over the past 4-5 years since then i've done more research than one person ought to do, i'd imagine. LR coyote shooting is the most fascinating shooting related activities i've ever done, and i'm still amazed at what's possible regarding making calculated shots beyond point blank range (PBR).
BUT i still believe that the shooter has to adopt ssome sort of "tactical" type system to go beyond PBR consistently. In other words, to put the 1st shot on target beyond PBR CONSISTENTLY the shooter has to become a "hunter-sniper", if u will.
Here's what i've found regarding those LR dogs that hold up out there some-- flattening trajectory doesn't gain much for point blank range. 400 yds. and beyond is just slightly less of a guessing game with a super-flat shooting rig. What is your guys opinions on this issue?

SS'yote,

I agree with you about "long range shooting made easy" for coyotes OR big game.Many times a shot must be taken quickly on a moving animal and varios "systems" for easy long range shooting fall apart.I have immense respect for Coyotes and love to hunt them.To me ,they are a noble animal and deserve the best shot I can make.

I shoot mainly .22-250s for coyotes.I have a 6.5-20 variable scope that I keep set on 14x because that is the power at which a Coyote's body at 350 yards will just fill the space between the horizontal cross hair to the thick verticle section of the Duplex reticle.

This gives me a quick "visual range finder" to tell if the animal is too far away.I keep my rifle sighted dead on at 300yards.It is about 4" low at 350 .It is what I consider the outside edge of my PBR for that rig.If the Coyote is further out than that,well it's time to lazer range him and then caculate how far over his back to hold.Even when there is time to do that,it is still a guessing game, particularly when the wind is up.Thus my desire to keep my shots inside 350yards...

BTW,if I am calling in thick cover or the dog is coming in hard and fast and I think it's going to get "up close and personal",I immediately turn the power ring clockwise until it stops at 6.5x!!!!

Yes, absolutely, bank on it 7/24. Aside from the level of QC a manufacturer may apply to a production run of brass there are other incidental considerations as well. The case makers will set higher standards for 6mmPPC brass than they will for Hornet brass or something like the .358 Win., and this is reflected in how often they replace dies and perhaps how much they maintain the quality of their brass alloy. As simple as the concept of a cartridge case is, it is very very significant in the accuracy arena. I had a conversation some time back with a gentleman regarding the use of the .50 BMG cartridge for LRH and he discarded the thought primarily because of the quality of available brass, in favor of a wildcat based on the .416 Rigby that he formed with Lapua brass. Despite the sacrifice of higher BC and downrange fpe, 2000+ yard shots are ALL about repeatable accuracy, and I gotta respect the man's opinion on that because he is successful.

50's comment(s) regarding Hornet accuracy is right on as far as I'm concerned. One of the old saws in ballistics is "...all else being equal." Getting things "equal" separates the victors from the vanquished in the world of accuracy.

Hey guys-- i think i'm hijacking 50's thread here so i'm gonna move this particular discussion to a different topic-- "Long-Range Coyotes"-- please come and respond.