BallisticianX
-
Posts
431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by BallisticianX
-
-
17 hours ago, AzShooter said:
Keep you OAL at 1.20 and try Vhitavhori N 320. I was shooting 3.4 grains and making power factor plus getting groups of 1 inch and a half at 25 yards from a rest.
I got some great groups with Bullseye. I just thought it was quite snappy, jumpy and of course very filthy. VV powders are not common place in most gun shops here so Id have to order it. I usually dont order up large quantities of powder before I know its what I settled on committing to. Of course its not cost effective to order a pound of anything either. So with that said I picked up what was on the shelves in conjunction with what I already had in my supply. So far the best feeling and clean burning powder I have tried is WST. Of course its the only one I did not spend time with shooting test groups as I ran out of time during my bench session. I did bump my initial WST load from 3.1 gr to 3.2 gr to chrono closer to 125 pf I like for ICORE. It made exactly a 125.1 pf and it did not get any snappier and still no jumpy feel. I have high hopes it will shoot well, If it keeps it within 1.25" at 20 yards its going to be my Short colt load.
-
On 4/24/2017 at 11:56 PM, Kurusty said:
Just out of curiosity, why are you running them at 1.20"? Have you tried the same loads with different OAL?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
During my lengthy experimentation I found 1.200" OAL was beneficial vs shorter OAL I tried with the Bayou 160. Lighter bullets did not show as much improvement when varying the OAL. (The amount of taper crimp applied regardless of type and weight of bullet remained constant with no change after initial adjustment to .358" diam pills to just put a noticable but shallow depression on the bullet. I did try a couple .357" diam bullets that would have had a smidge less on it.)
Anyway the 160 gr produced noticeably better accuracy and felt less snappy with the 1.200" OAL. The accuracy I attribute to shortening the distance of bullet jump to the throat with the longer OAL. The reduction of recoil with heavier bullets I attribute to the larger void left between the powder and bullet reducing initial pressure spikes with the longer OAL. Lighter bullets wont benefit from longer OAL in the bullet jump reduction as the bullet itself is shorter to begin when considering the needed bullet engagement in the case. But the bullet profile itself of course can change that. But pressure reduction with any bullet should be considered carefully when choosing the OAL & seating depth. Yes lighter bullets are more forgiving as less mass requires less energy to move (theoretically less pressure/energy gets them moving and out of the case) than compared to a heavier bullet. But it still can get you into trouble if care is not taken to stay on the longer end of allowable OAL. Now add the faster flavors of powder and the OAL gets even more critical with heavier pills. Then to add one more thought to the think tank is the crimp and that is critical for any weight bullet. (A heavy crimp on a lighter bullet can equal required energy to move as a heavier bullet with a lighter crimp.) Thats why I consider a taper crimp is required on short colts as it is more forgiving with variations in amount of crimp for release than a roll crimp. With all that considered that how I arrived to the 1.200" OAL....it is safe and produces best results!
-
Well its been and experience but I got the 38 short colt dialed in with my 627. It started off with trying short colts with various bullet weights and powders with horrible results. 38 specials shot a bit better but not acceptable. That prompted closer inspections that found a tight cylinder gap with slight dragging from an out of spec barrel from the factory. Barrel got warrantied for a replacement that shot worse with anything I put down it. So I decided to get a custom barrel and be done with the problem. When I got it back it shot 38's fairly well but SC's were still horrible. As far as bullet weights while trying the new barrel the 160 bayous showed the most promise. But I noticed leading from firing minimal rounds. That prompted me too check some things and it dawned on me to measure the cylinder throats. Being an on and off project between other stuff I missed this early on. Plug gauges revealed the throats were between .356" and .3565". Considering the bore is at .357" I felt the swagging from the throats left the bullet undersize resulting in gas cutting etc causing the leading. I followed the old rule of throats should be .0005" to .001" larger than the bore diameter so I went ahead and honed the throats to .358". After this fix the short colts started to shoot well. Now it was onto load development. This is quite a discussed subject on here so I tried some powders favored on here as well as a few I had kicking around. Here is what I tried and my thoughts (for what its worth);
These are the loads that chrono'd to make ICORE pf or better with 160 gr Bayou at 1.200" OAL in custom 5" barreled 627 with 8 shot groups from a rest at 20 yards.
Red Dot: 2.8 gr, 121 pf, 1.6" group, found it to be very smokey, singed kernels with sooty residue, jumpy recoil, and extraction was smooth. This flake powder meters inconsistently of which correlates to the large velocity ES during chrono.
Clays: 2.9 gr, 121 pf, 1.375" group, found it fairly clean with minimal singed kernels, recoil a bit softer than red dot, still a bit jumpy, and extraction was smooth. This flake powder meters a bit better and posted a slight improvement in velocity ES than red dot but still inconstant but surprisingly it did not seem to bother the accuracy.
Bullseye: 3.1 gr, 120 pf, .812" group (best group of all powders tested), no singed kernels but very sooty residue (dirtiest powder tested), recoil comparable to clays and extraction was smooth. This granular powder metered very well and velocity ES was better than clays but worse than WST.
Titegroup: 3.0 gr, 122 pf, 1.375" group, no singed kernels with slight brownish residue, recoil was sharper and jumpier than any other powder used, and extraction was smooth. This granular powder meters well and had the lowest ES on velocities of any of the powders used.
WST: 3.1 gr, 123 pf, (haven't shot it for group yet), a couple singed kernels here and there and very little residue (cleanest of all powders tested), recoil was soft and least jumpy of any of the powders here, and extraction was smooth. This granular powder (that looks like course dessert sand) meters well and posted the 2nd best ES on velocity.
WW231/HP38: 3.3 gr 122 pf, 1.750" groups, some singed kernels and some soot, recoil was soft and not very jumpy, and extraction was smooth. This granular powder meters well and velocity ES was equal to Bullseye.
WSF: 3.5 gr, 122 pf, 2" groups, abundance of singed kernels and some soot, recoil was slightly better than W231/HP38 , and extraction was smooth. This granular powder meters well and velocity ES was equal to W231/HP38 & bullseye. Interesting note on this powder; it produced consistent flyers, at least 1-2 in every 8 shot group. If not for the flyers it would have been more accurate than clays.
So in closing what I have found is faster powders are more consistent for the short colt when fired in the .357 mag cylinder. The faster powders are a bit snappier than the medium speed pistol powders though. Unfortunately the medium speed pistol powders do not perform consistently and are dirty. That being said it makes sense that a powder like WST thats in between the snappy fast and medium speed pistol powders would share the soft shooting and consistent velocity characteristics from both ends of the spectrum. I'm liking the feel of WST so far. I did not get to accuracy test it as it was the last powder I tested and ran out of time today working with it.
-
Mark Hartshorne of Pinnacle High Performance out of Quakertown, PA is whom I recommend. He is a complete custom revolver shop from action jobs to making his own custom barrels, his barrels shoot lights out by the way. He will make any S&W revo into a masterpiece!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
All of these micro dots have issues it seems. Especially on major guns. The root issue with "micro" is too much is packed into a small package resulting in more sensitive smaller parts. I've just given up using them on anything shooting major as they don't hold up. I hoped the DPP was gonna be the exception as they "improved on the regular dp design". The regular dp was a POS in my opinion as I couldn't get one to last through a season on a slide ride . I saw the mention about RTS2 problems. It was a common problem a few years back due to the battery contacts. C-more addressed that and will install upgraded contacts free. I still have one with the upgrade and it's been fine for a few years on a slide ride minor gun.
Thanks for the info on this! Though it make me paranoid to use the nib Delta Point Pro I got for any future builds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Another great group. Looks like you have found your load.
I'm going to run what I have for now. It probably won't be coast effective to have the cylinder throats opened up. Hell, TK Custom wants a $100.00 to chamfer the charge holes. Can't imagine what the other would coast.
Call Punnacle High Performance (Mark Hartshorne) to get them chamfered and throats honed. He is cheaper than that and does top notch work.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
In .357 bores a .358 bullet will be swayed down to .357 and depends on the bore how well they will seal for consistency. My former 929 had .357 throats and .357 bore so they worked ok. Rule of thumb are your throats should be .0005 to .001 larger than groove diameter. They you choose a bullet equal to the throat diameter. I get best results that way, no fliers and consistency. I tweaked my load and increased the COL on the short colts and got some better groups today. I attached a target with an 8 shot group measuring .810" shot on the bench at 20 yards.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Well after a few groups with the same short colt load that shot lousy groups prior to the throat uniformity fired great groups tonight. The groups stayed within reasonable size with every string of 8 I shot this evening. Im glad my theory (and work) was correct!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Just a little Polishing it will not create a problem as long as you don't remove a bunch of material. Titanium is not a naturally smooth material so a reasonable polishing it will only help extraction. Problem is that polished titanium doesn't stay polished. I explained that in a previous post regarding its grain structure and poor wear resistance. Yet some will argue the metallurgy facts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
On 4/10/2017 at 3:31 PM, Drillbit said:
Well did you have any luck?
I did initially shoot the bayou 160's once I got them. The accuracy was still dismal with short colt cases with COL out long or shortened up. I noticed 2 things in 50 rounds; a pattern of 2 separate groups in 8 shot strings regardless of the powder I used and clumped leading (in the very smoothly finished forcing cone). So I decided to check my cylinder throat diameters. (pin gauges being MIA I had to machine a few pins in .0005" increments) I found the following; 1 throat = .356", 3 throats = .3565", 3 throats at .357", and one throat at .3575". Not earth shattering bad (better than a Ruger cylinder I suppose) but not good either. Anything below .357" is not welcome with lead bullets of any kind. With the variety of swaged bullet diameters being sent down the barrel courtesy of the throat variances I'm thinking that might be the culprit. As of last night I honed all the throats to .358". I went to .358" as the revolver lead bullet enthusiasts of the past swore by the throat needing to be .0005" to .001" larger than the groove diameter. Today I plan on testing my work and theory. I hope it works...I'm determined to make the short colts work but its becoming a pain in my arse! I will post up what results I get.
-
I see it was a federal case and no way it was a major loaded case. So with that known it probably because it federal brass. Federal is usually the hardest and therefore the most brittle. I've had more federal cases split after an equal amount of reloading compared to most, with the exception of some foreign brands like tulammo that I won't even bother with. Remember Most cases are brass in the methodical sense but in reality they are not pure brass but have a higher tin content than usual or alloyed with another element that's usually cheaper than brass. So each maker has a recipe that a smelter vendor makes for them. Federal happens to use a harder recipe. So don't get worried, it's just most likely just a bad case. And as it was already said cases are gonna split at some point and 9mm and 38 special are the most common to do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
On 3/27/2017 at 4:57 PM, BallisticianX said:
The apex hammer is nice, not gonna knock it. It just so happened I bought one for my 627 build and it threw the gun out of time. I just find bobing the factory hammer is cheaper, it's already in time, and with a good action job I can get a reliable 6 lb double action with positive ignition every time. Anything less than 6 lb to me starts to get lazy on the reset and you can sometimes outrun the trigger. So my thoughts are why spend $160+ on a hammer when I can achieve the same result with the already paid for OEM hammer. BEfore the bashing of the OEM hammer begins, let me say these factory hammer are hard, they will be as tough as the aftermarket ones and wont break. Cut on one and you'll see how hard and dense they are!
Now if your gonna pay for an action job, and it will need it regardless. (Just dropping in a aftermarket hammer will not be the cure all. All the parts of the system need to be addressed.)
Option 1: $200 action job + $160 hammer + $40 to adjust hammer to mechanism(not every gun will be plug and play)= $400; reliable 6 lb double action.
Option 2: $200 action Job + $40 Bob OEM Hammer= $240; reliable 6 lb double action
Between the two your finger wont know the difference and with option 2 you have $160 to spend on powder, or bullets, or primers, or dinner for the wife to make her forget the $1k you spent on the gun. Ill just leave this right here for you to ponder
I have to make a correction, the hammer did not create the out of time condition. It was another circumstance unrelated to the hammer.
-
I had a 929....repeat HAD! As it was said the 627 is more versatile and you get a SS cylinder vs the finicky sticky extraction prone Ti cylinder. So I replaced the 929 with a 627. As far as conditions between the two; same deficiencies and same corrective work to make them suitable. Though I thought the 627 had a distinct edge on action feel and pull out of the box, but still nothing to be joyed about. The biggest thing in comparing the two for making a advantageous choice is ease of "making it shoot well. Namely bullet/ammo selection and convenience thereof. A 929 and the 627 comes with the same .3565 to .3575 bore and same cylinder ream/throats, so regardless of which case you use your gonna need a .357-.358 diameter bullet. That bullet diameter is meant for a 38 variant case without concern whereas it bloats a 9mm case. So it requires more case flare to not mutilate bullets when seating therefore more brass to crimp back to place compromising the crimps effectiveness because of greater spring back potential. Getting a suitable 9mm bullet weight in .357 is a challenge whereas a 38 bullet in .357 is a standard. This makes 9mm factory ammunition less likely to be optimal at .355 fired through a 929 whereas any 38 factory load in a 627 is sized appropriately. Despite some claiming its fine I can tell you my former 929 produced lousy groups with .355 or .356 bullets. I then tried .357 & .358 bullets and it shot much better with the edge to .357 pills. Then of course if you want a full house load for whatever reason you can send some .357 magnums down that 627 but your stuck with a 9mm +P in the 929 that will stick on extraction anyhow. So my opinion is the 627 is the better choice for versatility and ease of ownership!.
-
Sometimes it all depends how picky people are. My 627 barrel is slightly over clocked. I adjusted the sight left to zero the gun and I've been shooting it that way for 5 years. Honestly it took me a year to notice.
I've been asked to send back a customer's 1911 because the inside of the slide by the locking lugs had machine marks.
Some problems are real, some are cosmetic. STI has a lot more problems with quality control than S&W, they just seem to bitch about it less over in that forum.
Regardless of the problem being cosmetic or mechanical the fact remains it wasn't done right and you paid for it to be done right. Especially when you drop extra coin on a PC gun for extra's that are marketed and not done. An issue such as a misclocked barrel you consider a cosmetic issue is more than that. It changes the cylinder gap. So an overclocked barrel closes the gap and will result in cylinder drag as soon as some carbon buildup occurs or when only a little bit of wear creates minor end shake. My recent 627 PC had exactly that. Every NIB Smith I've bought in the last 4 years has been back for multiple issues, all of which were mechanical or poor accuracy related, none were just cosmetic. Bad crown jobs, horrible action fit, out of spec cylinder dimensions, etc etc. As far as STI goes, no doubt they have issues also. The reason this lack of consistency and quality happens is most people don't know what their looking at and assume all is good. They shoot and barely keep rounds in a pie plate at 15 yards and they're happy. So why should a manufacturer care to be to strict with a pass or fail spec when most people won't know one way or the other. As they say knowledge is power and it's the knowledgeable "aficionados" that find the problem that others don't know to look for! If that's picky then picky Im proud to be!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Cold you try seating the 160 Bayou out farther and then bump up your powder to make up for any velocity loss?
That is my current plan of attack. I'm waiting on the Bullets to arrive to proceed. I'll report back once I run some.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
A shorter cylinder for the 627 to exclusively use 38 short colt would be the ultimate solution. But the factory 627 one cant be cut to reduce the distance jumped to the cylinder throats. So retrofitting a 929 Cylinder in conjunction to a custom fitted barrel is the only realistic way to proceed for shortening bullet jump. Its costly and I just paid for a custom barrel matching the 627 cylinder. Not to mention I despise the titanium cylinders, that's the reason I offed my 929. If short colts wont produce accuracy I know the 38 specials will as its already fired a few 1" 8 shot groups at 20 yards. Damn thing is a tac driver with specials, puts anything my 929 could do to shame! So Ill try a few more things and if it doesnt work out Ill just shoot specials like a friggin laser beam.
-
The apex hammer is nice, not gonna knock it. It just so happened I bought one for my 627 build and it threw the gun out of time. I just find bobing the factory hammer is cheaper, it's already in time, and with a good action job I can get a reliable 6 lb double action with positive ignition every time. Anything less than 6 lb to me starts to get lazy on the reset and you can sometimes outrun the trigger. So my thoughts are why spend $160+ on a hammer when I can achieve the same result with the already paid for OEM hammer. BEfore the bashing of the OEM hammer begins, let me say these factory hammer are hard, they will be as tough as the aftermarket ones and wont break. Cut on one and you'll see how hard and dense they are!
Now if your gonna pay for an action job, and it will need it regardless. (Just dropping in a aftermarket hammer will not be the cure all. All the parts of the system need to be addressed.)
Option 1: $200 action job + $160 hammer + $40 to adjust hammer to mechanism(not every gun will be plug and play)= $400; reliable 6 lb double action.
Option 2: $200 action Job + $40 Bob OEM Hammer= $240; reliable 6 lb double action
Between the two your finger wont know the difference and with option 2 you have $160 to spend on powder, or bullets, or primers, or dinner for the wife to make her forget the $1k you spent on the gun. Ill just leave this right here for you to ponder
-
On 2/21/2015 at 2:19 AM, bountyhunter said:
I didn't open a thread, just posted the information for reference. AFAIK, you are still allowed to read the thread. If that's a problem I'll delete it.
The defect of over/under rotated barrels is very common, hence being #1 the list.
Ive encountered the over/under clocked barrel install a few times, most recently on a PC 627. Quality control has become an issue at S&W. Ive bought two NIB revos in as many years with laundry lists of problems. Been back and forth for repairs. the latter of the two I just worked over and eventually had rebarreled by Pinnacle Performance and finally its a joy to own. I will stop there as anything to negative about S&W is always banned by the forum police. (whispers)...honesty is welcomed and the basis of forums, unless the truth hurts then its subject to sensitivity censorship!
-
The Model 19 was the S&W flagship during the golden era of revolvers, my very first handgun was a 19. Originally known as the .357 Combat Magnum before it was renamed the "19". It was one of the models that was given extra detail to fit and finish. A model 19 is special as it was a gun that was designed as an easier carrying, faster drawing, and more nimble Law enforcement magnum revolver as compared to the hefty Model 27 that preceded it. It was derived from input from the Legendary Bill Jordan of the US Marines and Border Patrol. They are finely tuned and very accurate. I find the 19 with 38 specials to be every bit at accurate as the reputably "most accurate revolver made", the model 14. Its shortcomings is the frame is a bit too light to withstand a regular diet of .357 mags. Too many magnums in a 19 would split barrels at the forcing cone and deform cranes. To elaborate on that fact a .357 mag 158 gr loaded to, or close to max charge, will likely freeze the gun. But if you stick to 38's it will last forever. Honestly its a piece that really represents the phrase "they just dont make them like that anymore" It had counterbored cylinders, some of the best polished bluing smith has ever produced, pinned barrels, locater pins on the extractor to eliminate rotational play in timing, and had options for the since defunct wide target triggers & hammers (most common on 6" models). These little things cost extra to produce but made differences in fit and performance, all of which have since ceased in production to cut corners decades ago. Its a gun that you wont be sorry to own and shouldn't pass up. A 50 year old model 19 will make a Modern Performance Center revolver look like a 80's Taurus! In my opinion the 19-3 and 19-4 are the best runs. All the important design upgrades are done and it still retained the high quality standards. The 19-5 introduced in 1982 began the cutting corners to cheapen it up, eliminated the cylinder counterbore and barrel pinning, more series would follow just further demising the gun.
One thing to mention when you inspect 19's, check end play, thats a good indication of whether it was a primarily magnum fed or 38 special fed gun. You can always put end shake "yoke" bearings in it to restore it and will most likely still be accurate but the end shake will determine its worth and what you should pay. I wish you luck on getting it and at $500 its worth the coin as long as its not beat up and loose.
-
TK are all I use in my 627, keep in mind they make ones specific to brass brand. I strongly suggest buying them for the brand of brass you intend to use and sort your brass out so you do not mix brands. This is especially a concern for 38's as there's no SAAMI spec on the extractor groove dimensions (actually the ammo manufacturers didnt standardize including an extractor groove on commercial ammo until well after the inception of the 38 so technically they don't have to even have one) so each manufacturer has different dimensions. So you run into one brand will clip in the moon and another brand wont. If you match the brand to the clip they will work slicker than scum off a Louisiana swamp!
-
As it was mentioned ; Powder choice and COL are the factors. With a titanium cylinder sticking is exacerbated with the less dense grain structure of the material. With that said expansion as related to pressure becomes a bigger concern. I found that faster powders with their higher chamber pressures creates a greater probability for sticky extraction. Seating depth directly correlates to how the pressure builds with any powder. Heavier bullets increase chamber pressures also (greater mass requires greater energy to initiate movement). Crimp also contributes to pressure as it adds or reduces resistance to initiate movement. So, in my opinion, the best practice with Ti cylinders is powders from the slower end of the cartridge compatibility, light crimp (just enough to remove the case bell and lightly indent the bullet), and the COL should increases as you try heavier bullets available to the cartridge. This will tame the extraction best. But one thing to keep in mind; over time and use the Ti will become more rough and induce sticking potential. Ti has horrible wear/abrasion resistance and is prone to surface wear. So that polished chamber in Ti wont last near as long as a ordnance grade steels. For example after I had 4k through my polished 929 Ti cylinder it was sticking like a bastard whereas it hadn't before with my load of slow powder and mid-weight bullet with a Long COL. Im now back to a 627 with stainless cylinder that doesnt stick with whatever I blast through it.....Just an FYI....
-
Personally Id rather bob the OEM hammer. They are plenty hard, its already timed to the gun whereas an aftermarket "drop in" may throw it off time, and they reliably ignite with a action job to 5.75 to 6lb trigger pull (federal primers required). Not to mention its cheaper, a little mechanical ability to grind and polish is all that needed and its a free upgrade. Even if you pay a gunsmith to do it your looking at a $50 job vs. 150 and up for after market hammers. You just saved $100 dollars for the 6 lb action job of which is the more important element to function and usability.
-
Ive bought 2 performance center (a.ka. poorformance center LOL) revolvers in the last two years. Both of them (aside from other deficiencies) have had short bolts. Cylinder opening is a chore because of the center pin is still slightly engaged. I remove the bolt from the frame and carefully file the forward face of the flat around the pusher pin to get more forward motion out of it so the face of the bolt pusher pin is perfectly flush to the blast shield surface. Be careful not to let the edge of the file cut into that pusher pin. Its a pain in the ass but its the only fix for this. DO NOT try to fix this with adding more radius to the cylinder center pin! if you go to far the pin wont secure the cylinder in place firmly. Also as a side note another hard cylinder opening condition after you fire the gun comes from the firing pin bushing. I still dont get the design purpose for the bushing to protrude beyond the breech face. It bowls the primer in and essentially creates a detent for a case to push back into under firing and expand to stick there hanging up the cylinder from opening or making the double action pull harder. Not to mention it beats up the primer pockets shortening case life with premature loose primer pockets. I dress this bushing to about flush to the breech and it eliminates sticking without any ignition compromise.
-
I shot one cylinder of short colt brass loaded with 135gr RN Bullets at .357 diameter that I cast and Hi-Tekk coated. I didn't spend a lot of time with them and only used them over WSF but they sucked the worst of everything I've shot so far. I have seen the consistent trend of anything fired from short colt brass puts 4 to 5 shots in a tight cluster and sends the other 3-4 shots off as stray flyers. With 38 special brass it shoots the entire cylinder into one tight group. That's the baffling part; if the bullet jump from short colt is the problem I would think all the shots would scatter for a pattern rather than a group. Not half and half. If I potentially had a few bad chambers or throats you would think it would show the same signs with 38 special brass loadings, but it doesn't. And the barrel I got put on is not a problem as I get impressive groups with the 38 special loads of the same bullet that otherwise sucks when loaded in short colts. The powders I used aren't out of the realm for compatibility, I used them in 9mm revo loads for my former 929 with good success (WSF worked exceptionally better than any other powder with mid to heavy weight Bullets in 9mm/929). It's just not adding up in my mind. But one thing I noticed was the best group out of short colt brass was with a the only .358 diameter bullet I had on the shelf (Powerbond 158 gr plated HP). So I'm going to focus on the possibility of a bullet diameter preference in the short colt brass. I ordered some Bayou 160 gr RN .358 diameter Bullets to try. If that doesn't work I guess I'll be running special brass and will shell the short colt use.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My Journey with the 38 Short Colt in 627
in Revolver Forum
Posted
The barrel was made by Pinnacle High Performance out of Quakertown, PA. I am not privy to what brand of blanks he uses but he contours and works them to perfection. It is super accurate. The twist is 1 in 14. I chose that twist as its a good all around twist for good results with both light and heavy bullets.