Paule

In the interest of a fair comparison, here is some ballistics info that might be illuminating. I will try to give a representative snapshot of three different loads. 7.62 Nato (M80) 147 gr FMJ, 6.8SPC 115gr OTM (current Remington load), and 6.5Grendel 144gr FMJBT. Drops are based on 300 meter zero. Drift based on 10mph crosswind. 7.62 Nato muzzle - 2700 fps - 2379 ft.lbs energy - 300m - 2051 fps - 1373 ft.lbs energy - drop 0" - drift 9.48" 600m - 1511 fps - 745 ft.lbs energy - drop -89.50" - drift 43.94" 1000m - 1063 fps - 368 ft.lbs energy - drop -491.29" - drift 144.55" Energy drops below 500 ft.lbs beyond 800 yards 6.8SPC muzzle - 2700 fps - 1861 ft.lbs energy - 300m - 1916 fps - 938 ft.lbs energy - 0" - drift 12.05" 600m - 1313 fps - 440 ft.lbs energy - drop -104.79" - drift 57.77" 1000m - 945 fps - 228 ft.lbs energy - drop -615.11" - drift 185.82" Energy drops below 500 ft.lbs beyond 540 yards 6.5Grendel muzzle - 2450 fps - 1919 ft.lbs energy - 300m - 2004 fps - 1284 ft.lbs energy - 0" - drift 7.50" 600m - 1612 fps - 831 ft.lbs energy - drop -92.31" - drift 33.26" 1000m - 1213 fps - 471 ft.lbs energy - drop -455.76" - drift 105.30" Energy drops below 500 ft.lbs beyond 950 yards Based on ballistics alone, it is easy to see that the 308 is not necessarily superior, even for hunting tasks, especially as ranges get longer. Now I would not personally hunt elk at longish ranges with a .308 (nor a 6.5 Grendel or 6.8SPC), but there are those who point to 500 ft lbs. of energy as being a minimum amount for non-dangerous big game hunting. All three meet this requirement out to beyond 500 yards, and the Grendel actually beats the .308, staying supersonic beyond 1000 yards or so, the .308 goes subsonic at less than 900. Even the 175 gr SMK goes subsonic short of 1000 yards, and has more wind drift than the 6.5Grendel. I think the jury is still far from deciding this. While I love my 7.62x51's, I also have 6.8SPC and 6.5Grendel uppers for the AR platform. Until a magical transformation occurs, I'll still hunt elk with my .338 Winmag, or my bow. (230fps and a 120 gr broadhead, lots of "laydown power").

Bruce, you are spot on. Course design and scoring are the two big hindrances to shooting major in a non-"He-Man" category. Maybe that will change over time, but it would be a lot harder to run a big match with paper targets at distance. And most sites would have trouble setting reactive targets at long enough ranges to give major calibers a natural advantage.

You can also load shells with buffered shot. I still have a couple bags of Grex (from Winchester). It keeps the pellets from deforming as much in the rear of the shot column and patterns will be tighter. It was great for goose loads back before steel shot was mandated. I haven't tried any with a .640 xx-full turkey choke, but it should be like a rifle out to 50 yards or so. (Well, at least very tight! ha ha ha)

Thanks, Kurt. That was kinda what I thought, but good to know I'm not breaking new ground! I'm taking my time, as there is a good bit of metalwork required too, so this shouldn't affect the due date at all. My better half is pretty patient, and she already has plenty of guns, just a newfound interest in 3-Gun to satisfy. 3CG, if I run into trouble I plan to give Beven a call. He just fixed all my SV mags and the joy is back...

Have new his and hers M1 Field guns, soon to be converted to Limited configs. My wife's needs to be shortened. Anyone know if the screw pillars need top be reinforced (about 1-1/4" will be removed). or should I be looking for a different buttstock to cut off? Thanks for any ideas!

My comment was about standard bolts, not the LMT enhanced bolts. Those were developed to meet a spec the military wanted. Several companies built enhanced bolts to attempt to meet the requirement. The most well known are the LMT and KAC offerings. They were not designed as "boutique" parts, the features included were the response to requests for longer life and higher reliability under some specific severe use conditions. Definitely not for everyone...

Shooting an ACOG this way requires practice, and does not work for some people. An opthamologist could likely explain why, but it is not for all. I have also found that it doe not work well with the TA01/TA31 4x scopes, or any of the mini ACOGs that have short eye relief. The TA11 is the ACOG of choice for this use. I like mounting the ACOG as far forward as possible on the flattop and as low as the M16 blade mount will allow. Then the natural, heads up mount that shooters tend to develop for short targets puts the reticle "on top" of the occluded picture. Getting down hard on the stock lets the full field of view appear and the magnification kicks in. If this works for your eyes, you do actually see the lit reticle floating on the target, just like other occluded sights. Another sight that works well for this, and is easier to "see", is the Trijicon TR21R. I'm currently waiting on a Nightforce 1-4x with a circle-dot reticle. It may have promise, and the glass is superb.

The bolts we use come from LMT. (Lewis Machine & Tool)

I believe the current BH 77gr loading for the SF boyz uses a Nosler bullet. Apparently it yaws quicker than the SMK, and comes cannelured. Also, BH uses a reinforced case, not a standard .223 case, in order to hanlde the higher pressures of the milspec loading. Primers will also be more prone to blowing out of cases at these pressures, so go slow if you try to roll your own. The cannelure does enable the bullet to fragment a bit more easily, but the main purpose of this one is to prevent bullet setback in the magazines. With pressures at the safe max, bullets sliding back into the cases could prove to be catastrophic.

All bolt makers are not equal. We used to scramble whenever we needed two bolts headspaced to a single barrel extension. A sackful of bolts was mandatory. Switched bolt suppliers a couple years ago and now it's almost automatic. Virtually impossible to tell the difference with GO-NOGO gauges. I can see .0001-.0003" variances with a micrometer that reads to 1/10,000th. We still check every one though. (I have plenty of belts AND suspenders too!) Seriously, better to know it's safe... Most bolt failures we have seen were in f/a use, usually after 25-30k rounds. Lugs cracking is the most common occurance.

Benny's advice is good, especially the note on leaving solvent in the barrel to let it work. We prep and hand lap all our barrels prior to break-in. We do this for several reasons, but primarily to make sure that the throat is as smooth as possible prior to firing. This lets the throat and lands start to burnish in almost immediately and the barrels tend to group consistently very quickly, usually within the first 25-40 rounds, often earlier. Once the barrel is shot in, we seldom see any copper fouling at all and cleaning is a breeze. There are many good systems for removing fouling, pick one and stick with it. But always use a bore guide and avoid cleaning too much. In testing I have seen accuracy stay constant for up to 500 rounds (occasionally more) in a barrel that is properly seasoned. One thing that makes a significant difference is to completely remove all cleaner residue with a clean solvent, then oil the bore lightly with a good synthetic bore lube, such as FP-10 or KG-4. Both are non-burning and have an affinity for barrel steels. A patch with a small amount of either, pushed through the bore will work wonders. Our regimen, after break-in, is: Brush bore lightly with a nylon brush to distribute powder solvent. Leave in bore for 15 minutes (up to 24 hours). Wet patches with more solvent, 2-3, typically, will remove the fouling. 2 dry patches, then 2 patches wet with clean solvent (we use KG-3). One dry patch followed by an oil patch. If there is any copper fouling it will show up on the first dry patch and we deal with it right then. Properly polished, I see copper fouling seldom, once every 8-10 barrels. Usually on a cut-rifled barrel (Kriegers are the worst offenders, but they shoot when the settle down). Hope this helps. We build 6-700 custom AR uppers a year so we get lots of practice cleaning barrels. Quick and efficient makes me smile. I'd rather shoot than clean.

The TA11B is a good choice for 3-Gun. The red triangle is as easy to pick up as the donut and you still have a precise aiming point when you want one. Also, you get a nice horizon line that helps keep the gun oriented on longer shots. No BDC/stadia lines but for 3-gun it works great. Zero at 250-300 yds and most shots require no adjustment (out to 350 or so).

I had a pre-64 M70 that did this twice. Factory trigger that had never been adjusted. This was a long time ago, 1966, but I remember the first time very well to this day. A very large mule deer skated after I launched a round with the release of the safety. I got no second shot. After the adrenalin subsided I tried it again, same result. Went back for a new trigger. I never felt the same about that rifle and sold it before the next season. Wish now I hadn't...

I have been using a Kowa TSN821M for quite awhile. Based on a recommendation from a top highpower shooter, I got the 27x LER eyepiece. (Though I thought the 20-60x would be fun too). Well, the 27x is about as perfect as I could hope for. For practice shooting in various positions the angled body is a huge plus, and the long eye relief, which lets you see the full field of view with shooting glasses on is now mandatory for me. It even works well without a tripod or stand, just braced up on a pack, crook of a tree, etc. I have since tried the 20-60 eyepiece and, while able to pull some things in closer, was no help in resolving targets at greater distances. Here at least, the mirage present most of the year is such that anything with more magnification is useless anyway. The only scope I looked at that I thought was better was the Zeiss 85T-L, and at over 3 times the price of the Kowa TSN821, it should be. But the difference was not significant, at least to me. One caution, if you are planning to use a scope much in low light, consider getting the largest objective you can. I compared 60mm versus 82mm extensively. The 82mm gathers roughly twice the light of the 60mm (there is twice as much lens area to do the work), so early and late really show up the difference. Downside is they are a lot bigger if you plan to pack it around much.

Match was fun, challenging, and well run. Every stage we shot started on time (or early) and finished the same way. My squad was mostly a group from Fort Worth, and a terrific bunch. My wife and I plan to tag along with them again next year. We had an absolute blast!

Neil, I see what you are saying and I don't disagree that SG is a potential challenge. However, I would argue that while distance increases the possiblility of engaging steel unsuccesfully, the failure is not always due to the PF of the shotshells used. As you said, pattern density is a factor, as is shot size. From what I see and hear, a lot of folks shoot 3 dram, 1-1/8 oz loads unless buckshot or slugs are specified. These are going to yield a PF of 385-390. Pepper poppers will usually go down out to 20-25 yards with an IC choke, but 30 is pushing it. However, a .650 turkey choke and the same load will take down the popper at 45-50 yards. I would venture that most steel set up for shotguns will easily go down with virtually any load if a majority of the pellets can be put on the target. If distance precludes that, then you either add velocity (hotter shells), or increase pellet size (a slug is one big pellet!). I doubt that anyone is routinely shooting any shotshells that meet a 520 PF. It would take a max load 3-1/2", 1-3/8 oz load to get there. Today most people are shooting low power shotshells on the majority of targets because that is all that is required to engage them successfully. They don't shoot heavy field loads because they have much more recoil and slow them down. (Sounds like the argument against .308 versus .223, hmmm). What I am saying is that if you opted to shoot heavier shotshells in order to possibly shoot a smaller caliber rifle or pistol it could make the competitions all the more interesting, and bring calibers like the .308 back into mainstream competitive positions. Now there is no incentive to shoot any shotshell other than the lightest possible load that will take down the target, unless it requires a hole in paper (a slug). Doesn't mean that steel at a distance might require buckshot or even slugs, just that the predominance of shotgun targets can be shot with very light shells. As to minimum PF calibration for pistol and rifle targets, the current minor PF floors would work fine. I guess someone might want to handload some really soft 9x19 loads, but it's not really a punishing round to start with! Most factory 115 and 124gr FMJ loads are pushing 150 PF, and almost any .223 55 gr will top 150 PF out of any barrel 16" or over. Plenty of shooters use 75 or 77gr loads for longer targets, or to buck wind, etc. Choices again. I think that it would be more interesting if shotgun was handled differently. Now, there is no way to level the playing field, equipment-wise, because of the way SG is treated. There is no major/minor (it is really minor for everyone). If there were a distinction, it would be easier to get some of the bigger caliber rifles into the mix. My thought on the aggregate idea was to eliminate the "three separate matches within a match" conundrum., and make it a 3-gun match, in either major or minor classificaton. Paul

The 6.8SPC can make major with a 20" barrel, 18" is marginal. The 6.5 grendel can make major more easily, due to the capability for longer (heavier) bullets, but magazine capacity will be a problem for awhile (at least). The 6.8 has significantly more recoil that a .223, but still a lot less than a .308. The 6.8 is controllable full-auto with a good muzzle brake/comp, but without one it is a handful. Just a thought, but is there any merit to considering the range of power factors resulting from various shotshells and coming up with an aggregate power factor system for defining major/minor? It seems that there might be a way to do it that would allow competitors to make some interesting decisions as to caliber/ammo combinations. With only a <520 PF for shotgun, there is no recognition for shooting 3 dram 1-oz loads (320 PF) versus 4 dram 1-1/4 oz ones (490 PF). It would require more chronographing of competitor loads, as the actual PF would be needed to get an aggregate, but it could allow new calibers and level the playing field somewhat. With a major/minor threshhold of, for example, 925 PF, a shooter could choose 12 ga. 3-3/4 dram 1-1/4 oz shotshells (435 PF), a 16" 6.8spc rifle 115 Rem OTM ammo (300 PF), and a .45 acp, 230 gr (205 PF). Aggregate would be 940 PF and the combo would make major. A 9x19, .40SW, or .38 Super would not make it, but go to a .308 rifle and the smaller caliber pistols could still play in major. The lighter side would allow .223, 9mm, and low recoil shotshells to compete in the minor category. This would not solve the scoring issues, but would at least make major/minor a constant from stage to stage.

Thanks Lynn!

Is the match full? I tried the site's link to the application and it was inoperable.