srvet

Schmidt and Bender 5-25, Kahles 5-25 or Nightforce ATACR in similar spec would be my choices

1 hour ago, lapua said:

No excuses now then!

Ha ha that’s so true!! By the time we all perfect our gear there is only one weak link left in the chain 😂😂. 
A great result indeed 

You are most welcome, I am contemplating a similar trip myself . Good luck when it happens 

I have been incredibly impressed with the Freyr and Devik mods from Edinburgh Rifles.

https://www.freyr-devik.no/products

They are incredibly lightweight and very quiet indeed next to other mods (the larger ones more so than the smaller ones as you would expect). They also have titanium innards so they shouldnt rot away. We have two in our household (196 on a 308 stalking rifle and a 280 on a 6.5x47 PRS rifle) and I would consider another like a shot!

Here you go, it is based on the default data off QL so bear that in mind. As always start low and work up, may not be safe in your rifle etc.....

I assumed a 25 inch barrel as on a CZ 550. Dont know what the case capacity of Winchester cases are in comparison to the QL default case capacity.

Hope this helps

Cartridge          : .375 H.& H. Mag.
Bullet             : .375, 300, Barnes 'TSX' 30491
Useable Case Capaci: 74.300 grain H2O = 4.824 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.600 inch = 91.44 mm
Barrel Length      : 25.0 inch = 635.0 mm
Powder             : Vihtavuori N150 *C

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-20.0   80    51.70   1986    2627   29553   5630     96.9    1.699
-18.0   82    52.99   2029    2743   31294   5768     97.6    1.661
-16.0   84    54.28   2073    2861   33124   5899     98.2    1.623
-14.0   86    55.57   2116    2982   35062   6023     98.7    1.586
-12.0   88    56.87   2159    3104   37120   6140     99.1    1.551
-10.0   90    58.16   2201    3228   39306   6248     99.4    1.516
-08.0   92    59.45   2244    3353   41626   6348     99.7    1.483
-06.0   94    60.74   2286    3480   44091   6438     99.9    1.450
-04.0   96    62.04   2328    3609   46708   6520    100.0    1.418
-02.0   98    63.33   2369    3738   49490   6592    100.0    1.387
+00.0  100    64.62   2410    3869   52448   6660    100.0    1.356
+02.0  102    65.91   2451    4001   55594   6727    100.0    1.321  ! Near Maximum !
+04.0  104    67.20   2491    4134   58943   6791    100.0    1.288  ! Near Maximum !
+06.0  106    68.50   2531    4269   62511   6854    100.0    1.256  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+08.0  108    69.79   2571    4404   66316   6915    100.0    1.225  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0  110    71.08   2611    4542   70378   6973    100.0    1.195  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba    100    64.62   2486    4118   61924   6411    100.0    1.271  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba    100    64.62   2294    3507   43205   6839     98.3    1.450

Could I pick the UKV collective brain please. 
Like many others I strive to obtain the best results from my handloads and aim for concentric ammunition. There seem to be two methods of measurement of concentricity, those that reference off the case wall such as the Sinclair comparator and those that reference off the cartridge long axis by centring meplat and case head such as the Hornady. Is one better than the other? It strikes me that a non concentric case (eg small dent) could result in an indication of excessive runout whilst the bullet could be perfectly aligned with the long axis. Would the Sinclair type be better for assessing case concentricity and the Hornady better for assessing concentricity of loaded ammunition?

I’ve just seen this thread, are you sorted now as I will happily run this for you if you still need it 

RS60 works really well in the 6.5x55, good terminal effect with Barnes 100 or 120g TTSX, 120g Nosler BT and the 120g Sierra pro hunters

S&B PMII 5-25 with 2nd focal plane reticle and a 30 MOA rail in Third eye rings for me because it’s what I had already when I got the 338. Saying that I do thing it is a good fit for the application 

3 hours ago, terryh said:

‘This done

Which wood are the scales made out of? Pretty sure I used kingwood which is similar colour. Like the Damascus blade!!

I think you have thought more about this than the rest of us!! 🤣🤣

Let us know the results, it would be interesting to compare H20 based volume with paraffin based volume

I did an Enzo trapper in D2. Great knife for stalking but a bit short in the blade for bleeding Reds. 
 

https://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/threads/had-a-bash-at-making-a-knife.115159/

The end user probably has to figure in a rebarrel so probably £1200-1400 depending on the condition of action and stock but who knows, it’s only worth what someone is prepared to pay ......

You should be able to screw the die hard against the shellholder, can you do that? 

Have you used a Redding shellholder with the Redding die?  From the photo I suspect not. Could be the shellholder being poorly matched to the die? Possibly try a Redding shellholder? Have heard of folk having the bottom of the die shortened for this problem before.

Ok so using my applied Ballistics taking the Facebook method aka riflemans rule the app gives me a correction of 7.2 mils at 0 deg of elevation and 5.6 mils at a range of 692 m at 0 degrees of elevation. 

Taking the original elevation of 7.2 mils and multiplying by cos (30) =0.866 gives 6.2 mils of correction 

putting the angle of elevation of 30 degrees into applied Ballistics with 800m range gives a scope correction of 6.1 mils. This is clearly far closer to the improved riflemans rule providing of course Brian Litz has done his sums properly (which I bet he has) 

2 hours ago, Ronin said:

 it’s in 6.5/47 and immaculate and would easily rechamber to creedmoor if absolutely necessary 

 

OMG who would want to do such a terrible thing!! 😲 pure sacrilege!!

17 hours ago, saddler said:

After you with that 5-gallon tin of glue 😁

OK - if you fit a rifled barrel to either a Pump Action or Self Loading shotgun = it then legally becomes a RIFLE
What's the legal status in the UK for Pump Action rifles or Semi Auto rifles (other than .22-rimfire?) = SECTION 5 = banned for mere mortals and not allowed for TSG/PSG type events

The consensus around even rifled choke tubes is that they better be avoided for the same reason - namely they might make the gun Section 5; this may not be set in stone yet, but anyone want to be the guinea pig in a legal test case to establish legal precedent??

Single or double barrel shotguns - or maybe even one of the lever actions?
Don't see any issue with them having a rifled barrel - and these barrels also can be sub-24" length as they'd no longer be on SGC - which means the min. 40" length for all semi/pump shotgun rules similarly don't apply

Just not sure how competitive some of the latter may be. Don't think many of the lever action models are around as yet.
 

Ahhh yes I forgot about that !! 😕

so a bolt action rifled shotgun would therefore be legal? 
 

At least you would get free accommodation for a while !!

Can’t see why not, it’s just like a big rifle after all 

I used a Tier one rail and medium tier one rings. Some rails (like Farrell) are quite thick and can add significant height

I can confirm it’s new owner is delighted with how this project has turned out. Just on with case prep and initial loads so will post the results! 

20 minutes ago, One on top of two said:

That’s just joke haha £300 entry fee (?not sure if I’ve read that right ) haha 

I can shoot any of the British or English Open championships clay shoots for £50-£60  entry 

and there’s a lots involved than  just setting up some steel targets. 
john no matter. the cost of PRL can’t be justified. Well not with a straight face. 
 

anyway the question was

“ what would I change “ and there is my answer. 

I wonder how many automatic traps are involved with one of those big clay events.... and the cost of those would be.... hundreds of thousands. Not to mention the staff costs ground hire and cost of clays and infrastructure to keep the traps fed. Surely way more than 50 steel targets you would assume

Those SSG look slicker than a greased weasel!!

Very very cool rifle Edi. Is it controlled round feed? 

26 minutes ago, saddler said:

It's already been sort of hinted at in an earlier post - but there are THREE horses in this race. 
I am not connected in any way with any of them, though I have met them all at an EskdaleMuir Shoot.

The FCSA have stated their position, as has Marc.
It may be that they are both 100% correct and both a true reflection of what has happened to the range facility.

The silent party, and the one who legally holds all* the aces, is the landowner = his land, his say-so as to what happens with it & on it - short of compulsory purchase orders for new runways or housing estates..!

While the landowner is unlikely to be on such a forum as this one, I feel that the lack of input from that side means that we are all the missing a big piece of the jigsaw.
NOT saying that it is the case here, but it would not be the first time a club has cleared the ground and set up a nice facility, for the landowner to then turn around and offer it to another group who are paying a small dividend more than the club that did all the graft. Seen it directly & indirectly quite a few times...


* other than the extended danger area leases.
 

This is completely true and it may be that the land owner has been significantly involved. Potentially this may well transpire to be to everyone’s loss, including his own, if the range cannot be used due to inadequate danger area.