1000 Yard Rifle

[DTHEWOLF1492]

I have had a few people mention the 6.5 as an alternative to some of the seemingly more popular calibers. As I will not be hand loading in the near future, should I stick with something less exotic, like the .308 or 300 win mag? Also, I believe that I may have narrowed my manufacturer field down to Tikka, Savage, and Ruger. Tikka is a bit on the high side of my budget, but per your recommendations here, I have found Savage and Ruger rifles that seem extremely cost effective. My only caveat with this is balancing cost and quality. Is the extra 300 dollars for the more expensive rifle money well spent, or better spent for glass? Thanks again!

[Bart B.]

Jimro, the .260 is a good choice and it'll produce 1500 to 2000 rounds of good accuracy. The .308 Win. shoots just as accurate and has about 3000 rounds of accurate barrel life. I'd pick a .308 for a starter that round can be used in the greatest numbers of long range matches and excellent ammo available.

WOLF, get a Savage rifle in a target stock configuration; it'll shoot better than the Tika and a whole big bunch better than any Ruger. Best over the counter rifle made these days if accuracy is important for at least 20 shots which you'll need in long range matches.

[Jimro]

Bart B.

I'm not sure someone new to the game would notice accuracy degredation from a modest 6.5 like the CM or Rem at 2,000 rounds. Initial reports from the guys shooting the Creedmoors seems to indicate that it isn't unexpected to get 2,500 plus rounds before the barrel starts to open up groups. Based on the operating pressure of the round not being greater than the parent cartridge, I acknowledge that the smaller bore should wear quicker, but how significantly is the question. Not all barrels are created equal, but the modest 6.5s are definitely not barrel burners.

And I agree there is nothing wrong with the 308 as a first rifle getting in to long range. However, for the same price you can get a 6.5 and if you don't handload, the cost of ammo becomes immaterial (the cost of premium long range commercial loads being similar). Estimating 500 more shots for a 308 before a rebarrel on a Savage means you would spend about twice the amount of a barrel on ammo before another barrel change.

Doing the math on the rebarreling costs over the lifetime between a 308 and a 6.5 is an interesting thought experiment. If you bought 15,000 rounds of ammo for your rifle, at 3,000rds/barrel for 308 you need 5 barrels to shoot it all in 308. At 2,500rds/barrel you need 6 barrels to shoot it all in a modest 6.5. When you average out the cost of a premium barrel over that lifespan, say 400 dollars, the "cost" per shot increase for the 6.5 is only 2.6 cents per shot. There is a difference, but the cost is easily absorbed over time.

The other factors that the modest 6.5 have going for them is the lack of milsurp or "crap" ammo that tempts people to plink, reduced recoil over the 308 pushing either a 175 or 155 HPBT. The downside is that if you compete in F class you have to compete in the "open" category. The 308 or 223 are the only two allowed in F/TR.

And while my experience with a Tikka was very positive, I too recommend a Savage as a first long range precision rifle. Get a model with a 26" barrel or longer, a 24" or shorter barrels can quickly become "marginal" at 1k depending on atmospherics near sea level. The Savage Palma rifle is an amazing platform if you have the coin to buy one right away.

Jimro

[tobnpr]

I have had a few people mention the 6.5 as an alternative to some of the seemingly more popular calibers. As I will not be hand loading in the near future, should I stick with something less exotic, like the .308 or 300 win mag? Also, I believe that I may have narrowed my manufacturer field down to Tikka, Savage, and Ruger. Tikka is a bit on the high side of my budget, but per your recommendations here, I have found Savage and Ruger rifles that seem extremely cost effective. My only caveat with this is balancing cost and quality. Is the extra 300 dollars for the more expensive rifle money well spent, or better spent for glass? Thanks again!

JMO, but it's really tough to beat a Savage for out-of-the-box accuracy.
Do a search here, you know what they say about opinions...

The .308 is capable, but not optimal, for 1000 yards. The advantage here is the plethora of factory ammunition available- unmatched by any other chambering.

The .300 WM is optimal, but will put a hurting on your wallet, and your shoulder. Most guys at the range I see shooting this, on a rifle not equipped with a brake, are done after 30 or 40 rounds... And, as a beginner, I wouldn't go with anything that heavy on recoil. It will be tough for you to shoot accurately.

Hornady's match ammo for the 6.5 Creed has gotten excellent reviews, FWIW, and is affordable.

There are other options....
My personal LR stick is 7mm.-08. Capable, moderate recoil, and good barrel life.
USA F-Class is shooting 7mm...and there are a number of chamberings in this including the venerable 7mm mag that qualify (but again, the magnum thing...).

Were I you, I might lean towards the .308 due to it's versatiliy, cost to shoot, and availability of factory ammo.

If you go with Savage, it's inexpensive to do a DIY barrel-swap for a different chambering down the road if you get bit by the bug and start to handload- as handloading is pretty much part of the long-range game.

[flight954]

Remington 700 in .308win with a Nikon scope, Leupold mount and rings. This would be on the higher end of your budget(maybe a bit more). Practice Practice Practice

[Tempest 455]

Would agree there are better choices for 1,000. But to stay on a budget, .308 w/ the right ammo will get it done. My son shoots a box stock Savage in F/TR at 1,000 and we have what I would call a "budget" platform compared to what I see at the matches.

[Water-Man]

Bart B,

What do you base your opinion on about the Savage shooting more accurately than a Tikka?

[Metal god]

a good, affordable baseline set up for a bolt action rifle, scope, and bipod to start my journey. If, for instance, you had a budget of around 1000-1300 dollars, which equipment and caliber would you assemble for a strong baseline.

This savage FCP-K in 308 comes in right around $1300 as it sits today

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...age+fcp+review

[Bart B.]

Water-Man, my opinion's based on three things;

One's the performance of the Savage company team in competition as well as facts others have reported. Not seen such accolades for the Tikka folks nor company.

The other's this quote from their web site?

Fluting offers added lightness, same rigidity, larger cooling surface

It's physically impossible to make a barrel have more rigidity by fluting it. Some of the metal that resists its bending has been removed. And the larger fluting surface does little to cool the barrel. If the barrel's made and fit properly, cooling it's not needed for shot to shot accuracy as it heats up.

I think Tikka's flunked mechanican enginering and has no knowledge of why barrel cooling's only needed for poorly built firearms. Of course, they may really know all this stuff but are making claims that rifle shooters believing such marlarkey will accept as truth and therefore buy their rifles.

And finally, no really knowledgeable great rifle shot will use a detachable magazine if best accuracy is the goal. Unless he as a few dozen magazines to test and find two or three that enable the rifle to shoot to the same point of aim with each one.

[Water-Man]

Bart B,

It seems obvious to me, based on what the OP has said, that he can't afford and/or does not want to spend the kind of money that a rifle like the Savage Co. Team is shooting. So let's compare a base Savage with a base Tikka for comparison purposes.

I contend that, under those conditions, not only is a Tikka of a better quality but more accurate as well. My belief is based on having had both rifles. Actually, I still have a Tikka T3.

I also seriously doubt that SAKO has flunked mechanical engineering like you infer.

[Bart B.]

Water-Man, if they've not flunked mechanical engineering, what other reason would they have to perpeturat one of the oldest myths in barrel making?

Fluting a barrel does not make it stiffer. Period.

[Water-Man]

Whatever you say Bart B. Period.

[Metal god]

Fluting offers added lightness, same rigidity, larger cooling surface

They really don't say more rigidity they say SAME rigidity . I would agree that removing material should make it less rigid but I would think not by much . I think of it like a I-beam . Is a solid steel beam more rigid , sure but the I beam is still pretty darn rigid for the amount of material there is .

I have never shot a Tikka and would love to shoot one . I here a lot of people say they are the most accurate rifle out of the box . I have 2 Savages and they are very VERY accurate so to say a Tikka is better is to say a lot .

My FCP-K shoots every brand and wight ammo I've put through it pretty good and a few incredibly well . My Ruger American so far only shoots GMM really well not so much with the cheaper non match stuff . When you guys say Tikka is the best out of the box rifle . Are we talking with any factory load or only when you find something it likes . My FCP-K seems to like it all .

[Bart B.]

God, right you are; less, not same as.

Check out

http://www.snipercountry.com/article...relfluting.asp

[Metal god]

Very cool read there Bart thanks . I'm a little bummed that a fluted barrel of the same diameter as a non-fluted barrel is really just over half as rigid . I would have thought 75% to 85% or to put it another way a fluted barrel would be 15% to 25% less rigid not 40% less rigid wow .

[tobnpr]

It seems obvious to me, based on what the OP has said, that he can't afford and/or does not want to spend the kind of money that a rifle like the Savage Co. Team is shooting.

False statement.
Team USA won the F-Class World Championship in 2009 with some shooters (Team Savage) using stock, Model 12 F/TR rifles- in .308

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/f-tr/page/6/

[Jimro]

Very cool read there Bart thanks . I'm a little bummed that a fluted barrel of the same diameter as a non-fluted barrel is really just over half as rigid . I would have thought 75% to 85% or to put it another way a fluted barrel would be 15% to 25% less rigid not 40% less rigid wow .

Barrel rigidity isn't a huge issue as far as accuracy is concerned, repeatable harmonics are a much bigger issue. Bart B. has reminded us that barrels walk because of uneven shoulder pressure, out of true bore external dimensions, or internal stresses in the barrel as the barrel heats, not because the steel sags. My research into steel sagging says differently, but that focused on the effects of gravity on a horizontal barrel producing different deflection at different temperatures.

A fluted barrel will always be more rigid than a non fluted barrel of the same mass, because the non fluted barrel will be longer and skinnier. A non-fluted barrel will always be more rigid than a fluted barrel of the same diameter. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Jimro

[Metal god]

I know , understand and except all of those points . Maybe I did not make my point well . I'm just surprised when you flute a barrel you reduce it's rigidity by almost half . Thats huge IMO and would be rarely worth it if ever unless doing a lot of rapid fire shooting .

Let me take this thread one step further since we're way off topic but not really .

If you don't have a trued receiver and squared barrel that has not had all stress relieved bla bla bla . What barrel contour would be best .

Do you want a straight bull barrel that is more rigid but holds heat longer . Therefore causing longer periods of heat deflection ?

Do you want a less rigid barrel that cools faster for a shorter heat deflection period

Is the answer predicated on what type of shooting you plan on doing . Meaning the answer will be different if your shooting 1 round every 10 sec opposed to 1 round every minute ?

[Bart B.]

Jimro, you're almost right with:

A fluted barrel will always be more rigid than a non fluted barrel of the same mass, because the non fluted barrel will be longer and skinnier. A non-fluted barrel will always be more rigid than a fluted barrel of the same diameter.

It should read:

A fluted barrel may be more rigid than a non fluted barrel of the same mass, because the non fluted barrel may be skinnier as well as longer. A non-fluted barrel will always be more rigid than a fluted barrel of the same outside profile and length.

I'm not sure about the first half. I think it depends on flute depth and shape as well as the number of them.

But you're center X on target with your comment that fluting a barrel does nothing for accuracy. In fact, if done at the wrong time in a barrel making process, it'll definitely change the bore and groove diameters under the flutes; bigger for button rifled barrels, smaller for hammer forged ones and maybe just a tiny, tiny bit on cut rifled barrels. Too many 'smiths and barrel makers have run air gauges or hole mic's back and forth in barrels before and after fluting; those who have know very well how this happens.

Regarding the effects of gravity on a horizontal barrel producing different deflection at different temperatures. I suppose a barrel hot enough to bend more down from gravity may well do so. That means it's no longer as rigid as it was and its resonant frequency goes lower as does it's harmonics it wiggles at, plus, it'll have a greater amount of wiggling amplitude. Therefore, the bullet will exit at a different point in the muzzle whip axis. But I've not observed this happening with 24 inch sporter size barrels shot 24 times in 50 seconds in matches where they're used that way. Zeros remained the same from ambient temperature to close to, if not at, the boiling point of water and enough to cause serious second degree burns on ones skin. So, a barrel's gotta be hotter than these referenced to cause accuracy problems when they're really hot.

[Jimro]

Bart B.

You are correct, I should have specified that there are exceptions to the mass/length equation. And you are correct about improper fluting not helping accuracy at all, but that doesn't stop people from thinking it does.

In terms of heating and decreasing harmonic frequency, I can't prove it, but I can say that logically it should "even out" in terms of keeping a zero at a given range. Like the old Enfields where the muzzle whip allowed ammo with significant SD to still shoot tight at 600 (the bullets weren't taking the same path through the air, but were impacting in tight groups). As the bore heats up, friction increases enough to slow the bullet a little bit, the resonant frequency decreases a little bit, and the the consequent muzzle whip tosses the bullet out a little higher than the earlier faster rounds.

Can't prove it happens that way, but it is a logical explanation of how a muzzle can droop a thousandth of an inch with a 100 degree F change in temp and still shoot tight.

I've been trying for years to come up with an economical way to put an aluminum sleeve over a premium pencil thin barrel. So far I've not been able to do it without either a massive amount of equipment investment or time investment. Let the aluminum act as a big heat sink and the large diameter maintain rigidity, just one more attempt at the great compromise of "light weight maintainable accuracy" dilemma.

Jimro

[Bart B.]

I believe a barrel hot enough to droop too much will also be soft enough to no longer be safe with max pressure standard loads produces. Even cold barrels droop a bit and the muzzle droop angle's easy to measure.

Several rifles have positive compensation for large fps spreads in bullet muzzle velocities. Faster ones leave the muzzle sooner in its up swing; slower ones later. The Brits proved this over a century ago and it also happens with M14's. Neither has anything to do with barrels heating up too much.

[Bart B.]

Metal god, put a thin wall aluminum tube around that barrel with spacers on the barrel to center it then squeeze plastic steel epoxy into it filling it completely. Cheap and I think that would work.

[Jimro]

Bart B. Having seen machine gun barrels warp, I'd say that there isn't a bolt action shooter on the planet who can work the bolt on a match rifle and reload fast enough to get to an unsafe barrel temperature (at least with a 308 Win, not sure about other cartridges).

However, a machinegun can cause melt the barrel to the point where it droops enough and is soft enough to blow out the side. Knew a guy who did that in Iraq, was up in the turret and didn't keep the spare barrel close enough to do the required changes. He was a big stickler for training crew drills after that, live and learn I guess.

Jimro

[Bart B.]

Ah yes, machine guns. Known as barrel burners. The reason the first 30 caliber machine gun bullets were larger diameters than standard ball ammo bullets.

[Jimro]

Yup, the old M1 ball, 173gr FMJBT. Designed to extend the range of our 1917 and 1919 Browning machine guns to achieve the same level of effectiveness as the german 196gr FMJBT spitzer. Dropped from production prior to WWII as national guardsmen didn't like the increased recoil and only had short training ranges anyways. Resurrected as the M72 match bullet (but without the crimping cannelure) by Frankford Arsenal. Made it all the way to M118 Special Ball before finally being replaced by the 175 SMK in the early 1990's. Not a bad run for a service bullet.

Jimro