Jump to content

clover

Members
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by clover

  1. Thanks guys for giving me an easier ride over this than I've given myself. The barrel has been thoroughly cleaned and hopefully protected with an oiled patch. If anyone subsequently reading this is in any doubt about an appropriate bore cleaning regime; I've learnt the hard way that it should be cleaned until spotless after every use; which is certainly the route I'll be taking from now on.
  2. Hi guys - it's been a while! Sadly yesterday's gloriously sunny Bisley trip was spoiled by the usual pre-shoot dry patch through the bore coming out brown. Long story short the gun still shoots well (actually potentially better than it has with 8 ex 10 shots into around half a minute at 300yd and plausible excuses for the other two) but the bore scope shows many fairly small, isolated areas of black corrosion inside. I'm still relatively new to CF cleaning and from memory the rifle had an oiled patch (then maybe a dry one..) put through it after the last time it was used in August last year. I take pride in looking after my gear so obviously I'm pretty ashamed that I've allowed this to happen. My inevitable questions are how can I best remove the existing corrosion, and how can I prevent this happening again in future? For now I think I'm do a good few passes with an oiled PB brush followed by some dry patches and finally a liberally oiled one while I decide how best to proceed. For what it's worth the rifle is a stainless Tikka T3x in .223, the internal bore finish is (otherwise) good and typically collects very little carbon or copper fouling. The humidty in the cabinet it's kept in ranges from maybe 45-65% and there is no other corrosion evident on the rest of the gun that I can see, nor on the other two blued firearms that share the cabinet. I'm thinking this might be a good excuse to lead-lap the barrel..
  3. Thanks for the confirmation I could try GMK however after previous experiences with them I'd rather not if I can help it tbh. I'll certainly take a look on ebay (I'm a big fan of sourcing standard-spec components from third parties to avoid obscene wholesaler margins on "official" parts) however it seems that these screws are propitiatory to Sako/Tikka and as such I'm unlikely to find any off the shelf..
  4. Sadly my old Finnfire pre-dates the period when I learnt about proper hollow-ground screwdrivers, so the slot-head stock bolts are a little worse for "wear" (stupidity).. As such I'd like to replace them; preferably with some socket-head alternatives to facilitate accurate stock bolt torque. I thought I'd struck gold when I stripped my Tikka T3x as the screws were very similar (same M6x1 thread, apparently same head profile, Torx fitting as opposed to slot) however the lengths are different. Even more irritating, the longest T3x item is around 2mm shorter than the longest Sako bolt so modifying the Tikka items would be out of the question too. A pic for reference - the Sako bolts (top) are a nominal 41 and 45mm long, while the Tikka equivalents are 32 and 43mm: I'd happily pay the $25 asking price for a set of J&P Custom socket bolts, however I'm much less enthused by the prospect of a further $38(!) on top for postage from the US.. I was wondering if there might be any socket cap screws from later Sako / Tikka models (that would have had socket cap or Torx bolt by default) that might fit; it appears that the Quad has / had slotted screws while the current Finnfire II may well have Torx fixings, but I don't know how long they are.. anyone with a Finnfire II want to get a quick measurement for me next time their rifle's out if it's stock, please? From the J&P site it appears that all the Sako 995/75/85 and Tikka 595/T3/T3x screws are all the same size, so no chance of sourcing anything from these guns. All that said new OEM might prove too expensive anyway; if the (admittedly extortionate) Brownell's price of £68 for a pair of Sako stock bolts is anything to go by (this being the only price I can find online). Failing all that is there anyone else interested in a group buy on these bolts (or anything else) from J&P to help make the postage more palatable? Ta!
  5. I'd advise you stick with the heavier mod until you've tried it as it'll probably be massively arse-heavy so any additional mass at the front will most likely aid stability..
  6. FWIW I get the impression that the hotter (centrefire) .17 calibre rounds aren't really well-suited to any UK species - overkill for bunnies and a bit short on projectile mass for fox. Conversely the yanks seem to have a lot more stuff (namely marmots) whose size is far better suited to the larger .17 cartridges. Personally I love the idea of the .17 Hornet, but would have absolutely no use for one..
  7. Consider a used, higher-spec 10x42 (or thereabouts) such as an SWFA or Sightron? I have the Sightron SIII 10x42 on my .223 T3x and it's good to 600yd (and the rifle wouldn't stretch much further tbh). The SIIIs seem to come up used for £300-350 while the SWFAs seem to be in the £200 ballpark; although I was tempted by an (admittedly cosmetically worn) example recently for £120. I have no personal experience of the Optisan 10x44 but have used a fair few scopes in this sort of price range and usually find they're let down by the linearity / repeatability of their adjustments, which is obviously far from ideal if you wish to dial for elevation and/or windage. I had a look through a clubmate's S1 4-12 and wasn't blown away if I'm honest; (narrow FOV compared to the Hawke Panorama it was slated to replace and I didn't like the MOA-based ret) although I suspect it was probably built better than the Hawke so may have tracked better (something the Hawkes really aren't too hot at IME). Unfortunately at this price point I think accurate / repeatable tracking is the elephant in the room and rarely gets discussed or tested because it's often bloody awful. Coming from a background in airguns it's shocking how much sub-par crap is palmed off onto unsuspecting / duped punters in this market (which is where your two suggested scopes are firmly aimed). If you're happy with the compromises of a fixed mag you'll definitely get more for your money by forsaking the zoom models.
  8. I found this too on my (so far) only stint in the butts on Century; was bloody knackered afterwards! By contrast I shot at Otmoor recently and the mechs were much easier to operate; perhaps unsurprisingly as each carried two frames (one up, one down on each actuation) and as such appeared a lot better balanced. My only experience of using a paid marker on Century (as booked by my club) was very favourable; however I can appreciate that the talent will vary and this was bourne out to some extent by the praise heaped on our marker by my more experienced club members. I guess the usual caveat applies regarding peanuts and monkies; although tbh I can think of worse ways to earn minimum wage if I was local to Bisley
  9. Thanks - I appreciate my thoughts being validated by someone who probably has more experience in the field than I do
  10. Thanks - wasn't aware of that! On the subject of the OP's needs, IMO this looks like a nice buy (note that it's the earlier T3 not the current T3x as implied, but the differences are fairly minimal).
  11. A few thoughts you may or may not be aware of... If you want to shoot TR you'll be looking at a rifle in .308 only with aperture sights and a sling. If you want to shoot F-TR you'll want a scoped sporter / target rifle in .223 or .308 with a bipod. As others have said the smaller is realistically limited to 600yd and suffers far more wind drift than the .308 so won't be competitive; although you will get cheaper ammo and less recoil. If you want to shoot F-class with any calibre other than .223 or .308 you're into F-Open territory where it all gets very exotic and expensive. So, while the external ballistics of a 6.5CM will knock spots off a .308 in isolation; with a .308 you'll be competing on a reasonably level playing field against other guns of the same calibre in F-TR, while going 6.5CM will put you up against rifles chambered for hotter, more long-distance-capable cartridges in F-Open. Take this as coming from a self-confessed Tikka nut, but this seems like a strong case for a used T3 (or the later T3x if you can find one) Sporter in .308. This will give you excellent build and a nice trigger out of the box, plus a nice traditional-ish laminate stock with adjustable cheek piece and butt pad. The Finns apparently use these for target shooting with iron sights (as illustrated on this site) so it appears using these rifles with such sights is possible. Countryway in Kent apparently have a new one in at £1520 (image is of a LH one, although nowt in the text suggest it's LH), while I reckon you'd get a used one for ballpark a grand if you bide your time... Also, I believe the case head diameter of the .308 and 6.5CM are the same, so I think you could conceivably re-barrel the rifle from .308 to 6.5CM (or vice-versa) in the future if desired.
  12. I always fancied the look of the target model with the heavy barrel and laminated stock, although as others have said it's worth considering the liklihood of replacing most of the gun with go-faster bits since most of the original parts seem to be "acceptable" at best.. I guess it depends on what you expect from the rifle and your chosen application, however after a bit of a look for potential mini-rifle candidates the thought left in my mind was to look out for a used rimfire magic rifle and swap anything I didn't like rather than slowly replacing the whole gun peace-meal.
  13. Thanks - so we currently have one for cleaning after every use and one for not 😛 How often are you "deep cleaning" the barrel? How many rounds are you getting out of it before accuracy falls off? I'm currently not doing much to the rest of the gun barring brushing off any contamination and a light oiling of the metalwork, but then so far it's only seen the range in good weather so thankfully hasn't (IMO) needed any attention beyond what it's had.
  14. Love that - looks grand. Nice work
  15. Nice work - nice to see a custom build on a Tikka action and that looks immensely capable! From my limited experience with CF rifles I tend to agree - the Tikka seems to tick a lot of boxes from the off; enclosed / stiff-looking action, long barrel tenon, continuous integral scope rails, nice recoil lug setup, competent trigger / safety and everything works very well out of the box. I was reading this Chuck Hawks piece which bemoans the cheapening of modern firearms and the manufacturers' audacity in attempting to spin many of these cut-corners as positives; using the Tikka range as an example. While I totally agree with the general sentiment I think singling out Tikka is unfair and somewhat misses the point; IMO they've done an excellent job of creating a "poor man's Sako" without sacrificing anything that really matters. All the frilly bits have been binned but the guns remain solid, accurate, reliable... none of the functionality or ability of the important components have been compromised in the name of cost cutting. I'm a very picky sod and I couldn't be happier with mine. I totally agree about the Remington 700; which seems inferior to the Tikka in pretty much every technical aspect. I think the only reason they continue to sell so many in the US is due to range of models available, price, buyer patriotism, nostalgia and range of aftermarket bits available; although the amount of T3-compatable gear seems to grow by the day..
  16. Thanks for your thoughts chaps! I hear where you're coming from re. the PB brush and will stick some nylon ones on the shopping list. That said in my defense it only goes one way down the bore and there's no scrubbing involved! From the instances I've tried to use patches only I've really struggled to get the carbon fouling out so I think a brush of some sort is required; how long do you typically leave the solvent in the bore for before taking it out? There should be little danger to the crown as the rod is carbon fibre & brass, and only gets inserted from the breech end. I think my rod fittings are Tipton or Pro-shot; the PB brush appears to have an ally mount and the jag looks like nickelled brass. Thanks for the tip on the copper solvent - the brush always gets washed off with boiling water when it's been used with the stuff. Certainly no danger of catching me cleaning mid-shoot on the range (unless accuracy's suddenly gone south)! Do you have any thoughts on chamber cleaning? I'm always a bit paranoid about solvents or oil accumulating in the chamber.. I'll give the solvents you suggest a look next time I'm in the market for some; although thankfully the stuff I have seems to be lasting well! This balance is of course what I'm trying to achieve! It seems that at one extreme we have excessive fouling, corrosion, accuracy degradation and reduced barrel life from not cleaning enough; at the other the potential for bore damage, further accuracy loss and poor first-shot performance through excessive cleaning. We all want to be at the optimum point between these extremes but it seems that nobody can agree on where (and I appreciate will vary between guns to an extent).. Paranoid as I am, thankfully my shooting's not yet being impacted by concerns over cleaning but I'm conflicted - after 20 rounds do I leave the gun alone to retaining the apparently improved grouping that comes with a bit of fouling; at the potential risk of promoting corrosion / making the fouling harder to remove in future? Alternatively do I clean, knowing that if I'm only putting 20-30 shots down it that maybe half will be less precise than they could be? Thankfully, as per my OP the rifle's POI seems pretty insensitive to cleaning; unlike my rimfire which always put the first shot 20mm or so high at 20yd from a cold or clean bore..
  17. I'm sure this subjective topic has been done to death but I'd love to hear of your approach to cleaning your centrefire, or some links to approaches you'd endorse. I'm currently in possession of all the gear (Tipton 1pc CFRP rod and bore guide, phosphor-bronze brushes, jag, Proshot patches, KG oil, carbon and copper solvent) but sadly no idea. After each range visit I've settled on 2-3 passes breech to muzzle with the PB brush and carbon solvent (allowing 5-10 mins between each to let it work), then a further 5 passes with the brush and no solvent, dry patches until they come out dry, then if still showing carbon on the patches, one wet patch with solvent followed by a couple of dry ones repeated until they come out clean. After this it's a patch with copper solvent on, left for 5-10 mins then 1-2 passes with the PB brush, then dry patches; the process repeated until they come out clean of copper residue. To finish it gets an oiled patch before the gun goes away then a dry one before the rifle is next used. After 150 rounds on a new (Tikka) barrel there seems to be very little copper fouling visible in the bore and last clean I saw none come out on the patches (although it's possible it may have come out beforehand with the brushing). From a cold / clean barrel there appears to be little to no POI deviation from subsequent shots, however over the course of 17 rounds (with one exception) the groups did seem to shrink from bang on a minute to around 0.65MOA; of course this could have been my influence too. So.. does the above sound alright? Would you recommend fully cleaning after every use or after a set number of rounds (and if so what ballpark would you suggest?). Is full cleaning every time the way to go, or would it be better to just swab out the carbon and oil after every use then attack the copper periodically / after a set amount of shots? Thanks - coming from a background of things that fire slow, pure lead projectiles bore cleaning is somewhat of an alien concept...
  18. Thanks guys - quoting you all so you don't think I've left you hanging as I really appreciate your thoughts Looks like there's a lot of love for the Wildcat products and I must admit that in my limited dealings with them in a past life I've always been impressed by their customer service. My tame man in the trade rates them highly too, and pushed me away from the Utra and towards the Evo. I've somewhat gone off the idea of the ASE since I found out that they're sealed units / can't be stripped for cleaning; which seems like a big plus for the Wildcats. That said I've read of alignment concerns with strippable mods - how do you find the rifle's zero retention after the mods been removed and refitted / removed, stripped and refitted? I'm glad to hear that some are running the mods without the rear bush and I've heard (indirectly) that Wildcat are happy to endorse running an over-size hole in the rear bush to give an air gap with the barrel. Thanks Miseryguts for the tip about Coppaslip - the old chap was a mechanic so I grew up being sold on the merits of this excellent stuff! I got the opportunity at the weekend to hear an Evo on someone else's .223 - as usual with CFs it wasn't moderated rimfire quiet, but night-and-day compared to the rifle unmoderated and I'd have zero issue with using one without hearing protection. Thanks again - all your input has made the decision-making process a lot easier; I guess now all I need to do is pull my finger out and get a variation sorted!
  19. I'm considering a mod for my .223 Tikka. It would mainly be for range use, possibly with some rough shooting a long way down the line. I like the look of the ASE UTRA Jet-Z CQB as it's apparently quiet, well made, long lasting and a non-reflex design. The Wildcat range look very good (and a lot cheaper) however I'm put off reflex designs for a number of reasons: - I'm a tart and don't want the exterior of my nice matt barrel to get marked - I've read of accuracy issues with bushed mods and can appreciate how having another point of contact besides the muzzle thread could potentially allow more opportunity for inconsistency I also notice that ASE also do the Northstar - a non-bushed reflex mod in stainless; however it doesn't appear as effective as the Jet-Z and I have my reservations about galling if fitting a stainless mod to a stainless barrel; although I guess if they're different alloys / anti-seize grease is used this might not be an issue..? I've read criticisms of non-bushed reflex mods regarding the potential for movement / accuracy issues; however surely (for example) a 300mm non-bushed reflex with 150mm in front of the muzzle is going to give less leverage on the mounting thread if knocked than a 200mm non-reflex with all of its length forward of the muzzle..? I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on mods for the .223 please; particularly on the Jet-Z with regard to effectiveness, longevity, ease of stripping, corrosion resistance and cleaning schedule. I appreciate that it's a lot heavier than some options, however part of the reason I want it is for recoil control during range use so from this perspective extra mass would (within reason) would be beneficial. Thanks
  20. If he really must have one gun to do rabbits to roe I'd reckon it'd have to be a .243; being the smallest end of what's permissible for the largest game. If he can rule out the larger deer species than a .223 would probably be the way to go, although I think he'd soon tire of the cost of bashing bunnies at around a quid a pop. As others have said the most sensible proposition seems to be a .22LR or maybe .17HMR for the bunnies and a .223 or .243 for the deer (depending on size).
  21. Not what you're asking, but if you like Sako and can bring yourself to "downgrade" a little, Tikka to a great range of their guns with proper LH actions..
  22. Thanks for the thought - tbh I've struggled to find local suppliers of .223 target ammo; as one would expect most places tend to hold cheap 55/62gn FMJ or soft point hunting loads. I'll keep an eye out for some on my travels though! So, a year later and finally an update having managed to get back to Bisley. In addition to what's already been tried / checked to find the source of the issue I've also bought a Caldwell Deadshot Combo rest set to try and rule out the bipod. I've been reading up on / practicing supported prone technique as best as possible; focussing on body position / alignment, butt pad position and loading, trigger control, grip strength and contact area, breathing, relaxation and above all consistency across all these. Target ammo choice is limited in my part of the world and I'd still got a lot of the HPS Targetmaster left so this was used again for testing. The rifle was set up on the Caldwell bags; the front one sitting on top of a folded blanket to give more elevation. The bore had been cleaned after the last use and I ran a couple of dry patches through to remove an excess oil that might be present; showing a small amount of black staining in one place - perhaps residual carbon that had since been dissolved by the oil on the final cleaning patch...? After dialling in +4.75MOA of elevation the first 7 shots at 300yd went into a group of around 1MOA vertical and 2MOA horizontal dispersion. Its centre being around 2MOA right of the POA; suggesting the somewhat variable 9-11 O'clock wind was around 6-7mph from my JBM ballistics calcs. I held left-edge-of-bull (around 1MOA) for the following three shots; evidently not being quite enough to get them in the middle but closer and into a nice group of around 1MOA with one V-bull and two 4's low-left. The wind changed to a more 9 O'clock position and I put a further three down, holding on the LHS edge of the 4-ring now so giving around 2MOA windage correction. This yielded a nice just-sub-MOA group slightly high right with one V-bull, one bull and one 4. I then removed the front rest and blanket, fitted the bipod and put another two shots down - the 4th going a little low right to bring the group to maybe 1.5MOA, the 5th dropping right into the bull with the others. The 4th shot didn't feel like a great release as I was somewhat preoccupied with how the bipod felt a bit less stable than the rest I'd previously been using. In summary from the 300yd testing: - The rifle seems to suffer no POI shift when fired from a clean, cold barrel - Variable wind notwithstanding the gun seems MOA-capable when I do my bit - The rifle is more stable on front and rear bags than bipod - There appears to be little to no difference in POI shift between bag and bipod Inspecting my ammo after the 300yd testing had raised concerns in my mind about the finish on the 69gn SMK's tip - the jacket appearing somewhat ragged and uneven to varying degrees on most examples. After some discussion another club member lent me his multitool and the tips of seven of my remaining ten round were carefully dressed as flat as I could get them (which was a lot better than some had started with!) I left the remaining three most dodgy examples alone as a control. Next onto 600yd; same setup as before with the front and rear bags and a total of +18MOA elevation adjustment to the scope. Wind had picked up and was now around 10mph I reckon so I held off around 2 Mils / 7MOA to the LHS. The seven rounds with the dressed tips went into a group of around 1MOA vertical and 3MOA horizontal dispersion, slightly high-right and distributed between the bull and 4 ring. The final three wonky / unmodified rounds went into an evenly-proportioned group of around 0.5 - 0.75MOA high-right across the bull and 4-ring. In summary from 600yd testing: - Variable wind notwithstanding the gun seems MOA-capable when I do my bit - Damage to / variation in the shape of the bullet tip seems to have very little effect on accuracy, as a subsequent internet search corroborated. Over the total of 25 rounds fired over both distances the gun seemed very well-behaved. POI being pushed around by the wind but the vertical dispersion suggesting it's capable of MOA-or-better groups in good conditions; and thankfully lacking any of the enormously erroneous (maybe 8 minutes out-of-group) fliers I experienced at this range last time. IIRC Tikka guarantee that their rifles will hold 1MOA over 5 shots (presumably at 100yd) so I don't view these results as bad at all considering the calibre, wind and range involved; as well as the fact that the gun's totally stock and firing the only brand of ammo I've tried so far. I'd like to think that if I ever get around to reloading some load development might shrink the groups further. I'm still not really any wiser as to what cause the fliers last time; the only possible conclusion I can draw is barrel fouling as the problem started at shot 31 last time and I only fired 25 on this occasion. I guess it's subjective, but how many rounds would one expect to get out of a good, clean .223 barrel before accuracy degradation required more cleaning? If the problem last time was fouling, is it possible that the the period required between cleaning would increase as the barrel breaks in? As of yesterday the rifle has now consumed 100 rounds. Thanks again for all the input so far, and as always I'd be interested to read any thoughts anyone might have on this subject
  23. Absolutely - might as well pick the best (subjectively and objectively) though! Thanks for your thoughts. The bluing issue in wear areas doesn't really concern me; however I recall reading about the corrosion issue and that puts me right off tbh. I'm quite astonished by the tales of how readily these guns apparently corrode. Corrosion resistance wasn't at the top of my list of reasons for going Stainless (yeah, I know it can still oxidise) however it reinforces my choice and makes me a little disappointed that the TAC A1 and Sporter are only available in carbon steel. On the subject of corrosion, how do you find the stock on the TAC for attending to the finish? The accessory rail / shroud / handgrip around the barrel looks to be a bit of a nightmare from the perspective of cleaning / oiling the finish; although I'm guessing it comes off via the two bolts at it's bottom near the breech..? I also remember reading about the sholder issue - IIRC this is only a problem on the guns with 5/8 UNF(?) threads at the muzzle (CTR and the TAC series I think). The thread on my Varmint is M18x1 and appears to have an appropriate undercut; while I can screw the thread protector on both ways around (it's threaded all the way to the front) suggesting no issues with the base of the the thread. Glad you're happy with yours!
  24. Thanks for the comprehensive argument! As for hype, the 6.5CM is all over the net and seems to be the cartridge of the moment; not to suggest that the attention it's getting isn't deserved. I'd already pretty much settled on the CM as the ideal mid-range 6.5mm cartridge in isolation for some of the reasons you describe although hadn't considered some of the others you've mentioned - such as the throat dims. Just out of interest why would you suggest that the sharper shoulder angle is "better"? Are you considering this form the perspective of case capacity or are there other reasons? Perhaps it's time to fire Tikka a message to see if they plan to do the Sporter in 6.5mm.. they seem to have a fairly arbitrary selection of features for some guns and really all they'd have to do would be to pinch a CM barrel from another mode - the rest of the gun would be .308 I believe.
  25. Thanks - I had considered the custom route but a fairly significant issue for me would be finding a LH action I imagine. I also like the simplicity of an off-the-shelf option, although granted your custom route has evidently paid dividends with the ability to fit a much longer barrel. Granted the Swede wasn't created for target use and has an excellent rep as a hunting round, however it was developed for a military application and I believe is looked on favourably on account of its accuracy. Thanks for the above - I'm always skeptical of the "latest great thing" and I'd guess that the short action compatibility doesn't matter for most of us on this side of the pond, unless you're allergic to longer bolt strokes. That said having run through all the load data on the Vihtavuori website the CM seems to be quite a bit more efficient than the Swede (around 10% on aggregated load data, I'm guessing because of the latter's greater case volume); which rightly or wrongly suggests to me greater barrel life for the CM. I've yet to compare the load data from the .260, however I think this is a bit less efficient than the CM too, while it seems to be falling out of favour on this side of the pond. There's a lot of hype surrounding the CM currently but that of course is no guarantee of longevity. It does seem to be perhaps the most well-rounded and appealing of the "middling" 6.5mm cartridges though, and seems to have been fairly widely adopted so I think once the hype has died down it will still be carried by its legitimate merits. Thanks - I read through Part 1 of of Laurie's epic last night and am picking through part 2 now. Interesting stuff, if somewhat complex in terms of all the variants available. I thought the Scandinavians were unique in their adoption of the high-SD 6.5mm rounds, but evidently they were investigated by a lot of Governments at the end of the 19th century. I too saw the T3 and was a little tempted, although as you suggest IMO the 20" barrel is a bit on the short side. That aside though I could still stick a GRS stock on it and have change from the price of a Sporter.. although somehow this doesn't appeal as much. You're correct about the action lengths so the stocks could indeed be swapped around; presuming the bottom metal / mag formats are the same. Thanks - I thought similar. I'm happy with the 20" barrel on the .223 but if going larger I'd definitely want the longer tube. Ta - that sounds like a lot of gun! I bet the weight brings benefits during use though. Is there anything you don't like about it?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy