ds1

I’m using RS 76 with 285 Eldm’s in an AXMC but with Krieger custom 20” barrel. 

Load is 92.0 grain RS 76 with CCI magnum primers, 95.5mm COAL.

Lapua Brass: H2O capacity 100 grains.

Caution with the Eldm’s, my Krieger barrel loves them but a friend’s AXMC when he had a U.K. factory barrel on it was shooting gatherings rather than groups. A Bartlein AI USA  barrel fixed that.

His 27” U.K. AI barrel and my 25” U.K. AI barrel ( Jordan contract- yes they did make a 25” barrel for a specific Jordan contract) both shoot Lapua 250 and 300  grain pills just fine so I.  suspect a difference in throating reamers.

On 2/6/2024 at 12:56 PM, searlock said:

I prefer the Hiperfire Hipertouch triggers. It works really well in my AR 10 308 F Class, and superb in my AR 7.62x39 for the really hard primers.

Besides the Timney in the MPX I have just got a  Hyperfire PDI in a Davinci DG9 9mm which is excellent in that system- 9mm blowback breaks triggers and the hammer weight is heavier than other triggers which is a big plus with a 9mm blowback also as it helps keep the bolt closed a fraction longer ( as well as helping with heavy primers). It has a 2lb break but is still a 1/2lb more than the Trigger Tech……I would like to go lower weight if I could.

The Trigger Tech Diamond (2 stage) would be a disaster in the 9mm pcc with a slow and light reset but both the Trigger Tech and Hyperfire ( which has a fast and positive reset if not as short as the Timney) would work in the JP. 

I have a S&B 5-45x56 PM2 on my AXMC 338. It does for the distances I shoot mainly 1km. If I needed more elevation I would look at an Ivey adjustable mount or other options. I don’t need the elevation though. 
 

I have a 7-35 NF ATACR on another rifle which has more elevation but I prefer the S&B on the AI just for the aesthetic. If I was doing it again I would also look at a ZCO 8-40x56. I arranged a couple of ZCO optics for some English friends. They seem very happy with them preferring them to their S&B PM2 scopes. 

If you do it I would Vapor blast (aka wet blasting) as it leaves a higher quality surface than sand or bead blasting. I have only had DLC (which is hard) Vapor blasted from stainless surfaces.

I can only really speak about the bigger Dillons and to a point Mk7s. I have a Dillon 1050 Super. There are 3 presses in this series - RL 1050 ( no longer made), 1050 Super,  RL 1100. Basically it comes down to case size. The RL 1050 will load pistol caliber and 223 size rifle. This is due to the cam design. The RL 1100 lets you load up to 308w length rounds - using a needle bearing cam as per the RL 1050. The RL 1050 Super lets you load up to 30-06 length rounds but replaces the cam with a C linkage to do this. So a good place to start is with the maximum round length you want to reload. If only loading 9mm with no intent of anything else the original RL 1050 would be my first pick  as it has less ram and handle travel.

Powder drop accuracy, using RS12 (3.7grains) for 9mm I am getting +/- 1 tenth grain repeatability. The powder type helps a lot - I would not expect this with larger stick powders.

To make the system worthwhile ( efficient) over other presses you really need at some point the Double Alpha Mr. Bullet feeder and Dillon auto primer filler. This adds about £1k to the cost. I have these but have not auto driven the press. Once set up I have no desire to change calibres. 

For precision rifle low volume reloading I use a couple of Forster Co-Ax presses. It’s a different type of reloading starting with annealing and neck trimming etc. If you really want to go down a more precision route with a progressive press Dillon offer a CP 2000 ( case prep centre). I think there are better ways for my purposes but then again I’m not reloading rifle volumes for something like CSR where a progressive may work well.

Dillon vs Mk7, I have a friend with two Mk7 presses and a Dillon 1100. The Mk7 looks a lot nicer made and offer 10 stations but they both have had primer feed problems, in the end he went with an off-press automatic primer system.

👍

Personally I use a Gitzo Traveler and medium Gitzo ball head. It fits into my rucksack. If size and weight is not a concern Craig (CTP) went with this.  You can find his detailed review on our fb site 

Link to the tripod:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/INNORELTechnologiesCoLtd/INNORELTechnologiesCoLtd/page/81CBDA13-CF4F-495C-A501-5DA085E913E0?channel=Store

I also was in fotoskoda in Prague the other week and saw this: a gimbal head is worth considering as it puts the CofG over the pivot point. It’s over £1k though.

Ok , in fairness to ruger 7717 I’ve removed all non relevant post before this deteriorated into a hot mess. Ruger is being no a gentleman and not gouging. Let’s give him some respect.

Laurie what you said it excellent information as usual. It’s only removed as it’s a for sales post. I’ve copied your post into the hand loading section to start a new topic.

19 hours ago, Laurie said:

 

Yes, N140 and RS52 are fairly versatile (in common with nearly all tubular powders in that burn rate category), but it is more an issue of the three cartridges' case capacity to bore ratios, which are much closer than you might imagine.

The usual way to measure / categorise the ratio is to use capacity as measured in grains water weight and available either by measuring yourself using a fired and unsized case with the spent primer still in situ, or an approximate value as supplied by QuickLOAD or GRT, and dividing it by the area of the bore in square inches. This is the primary determinant of the optimal powder for that cartridge, a secondary one being bullet weight.   

 

308 ratio value is c. 750 (56gn water capacity divided by 0.075 sq in. bore area)

6BR runs at around 820

I can't be bothered looking up 22 Valkyrie's case capacity, but the slightly smaller 223 Rem runs at around 780 with my brass and rifle chamber, so is likely a tad over 800.

 

These lie, in the nature of this metric, very close, so need similar powder characteristics, hence RS52 and N140 work very well in all of them. As examples of quite different cartridges, .30BR runs at 527 and 30-30WCF at 587, so use faster burners to suit a low ratio; 7mm Rem Mag and 7mmWSM are both at 1,300 and need much slower burning magnum rifle powders to optimise performance. That 1300 figure is traditionally also taken as the dividing line for a cartridge being a true over bore-capacity design. Anything much higher reduces efficiency in terms of return on each grain weight of powder employed as well as going from being a 'barrel-burner' to being a serious barrel-burner.

It is not cartridge size per se that dictates powder needs. An easy way to see that is to look at a cartridge family based on a single case but necked up/down to different bore sizes and look at the powders advised in a reloading manual, and which produce the highest MVs. The most adapted design in current use is the 308 Win, since adopted in 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm, .33 and .35 bores/bullets factory versions, and a few more wildcats too, but all 'same size' cartridges. 243 Win uses 'slower' powders than 308 Win which in turn uses 'slower' powders than .33 Federal for a typical bullet weight in each calibre.  

 

Thank you for the detailed reply Laurie. Years ago having half a dozen powders on the shelf was ok and I probably used more calibers back then and was more willing to experiment. I also hate getting stuck with half a lb of powder on the shelf that never gets used when I’ve given up testing it

These days I tend to buy in 10kg tubs and having just 2 or 3 powders is more economical. 

20 minutes ago, Re-Pete said:

I seem to remember buying RS52 in a nice 10kg plastic barrel.......favourite powder for 308, 6BR, and 223.

Pete

Interesting observation, I’ve just ordered 10kg of N140 as it does very nicely in 308, 6BR and 224V.

Looks like Rs52 and N140 are both very versatile powders within small /  medium capacity cases. I am surprised at the versatility really. I cannot speak for Rs52 ( no experience and in no way suggest equivalence) but powders that can go from 20g to +40g  and give excellent performance seem to be the ‘thinking blokes choice’.

To the OP, You can add elevation into the mix, lower magnification scopes tend to offer more available elevation, there are however work a rounds such as Ivey adjustable mounts or Charlie Tarac prism systems.

Scopes with more magnification tend to be longer and heavier but not always such as Nightforce Competition series. There is a trend to push the magnification multiplier- eg, March 10x (5-50) and S&B 9x (5-45). But not inexpensive.

Personally I feel my S&B 5-45 scopes are better than my previous S&B 5-25 scopes in terms of optical quality- no lens baffle cutting FOV for a start which makes the S&B 5-25 effectively a 7 or 8 to 25. In the end it’s a trade off, weight, elevation, price, usable magnification for application- prs shooters tend not to use over 25x where spotting misses is crucial.

Slightly off topic but just picked up a Longshot / Target Vision system. This is the one mile version. If it does what it says on the can - multiple shooters, different colours for each shooter, shot sequence and group size I will be a happy camper.

I went with a TriggerTech Diamond - flat trigger shoe. Thoughts: Easy install and easy to set to minimum weight. First stage is very light and short (no weight) up to a clean and defined wall. Break is clean and repeatable. The trigger based on 1 range session is very repeatable in terms of break and reset. 

Dislikes - weight, 1.5 lbs is too heavy for me in terms of a match trigger, however this is I think is an AR system limitation. I have not found a significantly lighter trigger thus far. Reset - it’s fine for a precision rifle but I can easily outrun the reset - trigger pressure to the reset is very light ( result of a light trigger). I shoot a lot of PCC in 9mm with a heavier single stage Timney trigger - no where near as light but it defines what a short positive reset should be.

All in all 👍 

Lee, I’m getting very good and consistent results with 22 cal 90 grain ATips in 224 Valkyrie with a 1:7 twist at around 800m/s.

Obviously 22PRC is going to give much more capacity and velocity but maybe still worth considering 90+ grain 22s with a 1:7 twist (I haven’t blown any 88grain or 90 grain Amax / ATips yet).

as per tittle, by best I mean lightest with cleanest break. Single or double stage I can live with both. Basically I have it down to the Timney Calvin Elite or TriggerTech Diamond……..anyone experience of both please?

Purpose is for a long range precision build in an AR15 platform. Current trigger is a JP industries which is not bad at all but I want better.

Andy many thanks, Derek I m over in August but with the family down to Cornwall so no chance of any range time. Anyway hope to see you both over here.

I think getting kids into shooting is most important. It’s different for me as I have my own range and I let a junior club use it for free. However it seems like shooting sports are being cut off at the knees and everything is being done to stop young people participating.

With that in mind a few pics of my 10 year old daughter barricade shooting with mp5, Krink and Ar15. A nice fun way to spend a Saturday.

Mp5 (9mm so can be used on plates - barricades meets steel challenge). 

The Krink and AR 15 have to be shot on paper as I am not happy about shooting steels at 50m with rifle calibers.

Krink (5.45x39)

Ar15 223 Rem.

Look at it this way, if you are buying a second hand scope (particularly if it’s a higher priced unit) you have very little to lose with a Vortex - the scope is warranted for life. For me it would be quite an important factor say between choosing a Vortex Razor vs a S&B PM2. It’s also a reasonable argument over choosing to buy a second hand Vortex over a new Vortex.

Lowest height, Weaver mount, folding legs with widest leg spread would be a Ckye Pod. I have the Heavy Duty version but the PRS version may suit you better.They are not inexpensive, they have generous tolerances (loose)but lock up well enough with the weight of the rifle on them. It needs to be pre-loaded then I find it tracks nicely back.

They have upgraded the picatinny/ weaver rail mounting system to a duel Arca / weaver clamp system in one plate- much better idea ( I’ve ordered one) the original push bottom system has too much movement in it.

 I did a review sometime ago:

Rocketdogbert,

what's the upper to lower play like? I ask as the optic and barrel are on different parts. From what you say the grouping itself is fine. I don’t expect this  is your problem but worth a few minutes consideration from. Kiss Vector full-bore.

ps. (giving your scope a knock may indicate reticule movement but may also in this case indicate movement between upper and lower if there is any tolerance) a  collimator attached to the upper would isolate the scope effectively though if you want to give your scope a knock).

“I discovered an issue that may affect accuracy. There is play between the upper and lower receiver. If you twist the upper (rear) and lower (forward) grip in opposite directions, you will notice that a gap of about 1.5 millimeters appears between the receivers. Since the sights are on the upper, and the barrel is on the lower, an aimpoint error is induced.  

My rough calculations shows a potential error of +- 3 inches at 25 yards.  

In my opinion, there should be NO movement or play between the upper and lower. Especially since the barrel is on the lower and the sights are on the upper.  

I've been getting lousy groups at 25 yards from a bench rest, and I am not happy. “

Best would be to try another scope that you know is reliable in a different mount on the rifle. It will indicate if the issue is with the rifle or not from the start.

If all is good with the rifle the mount is the next likely suspect - check it for cracks etc ( I had a Spuhr mount crack , so anything is possible). If possible try a different scope in the mount, it will indicate if the issue is with the mount or scope.

If the rifle and mount seem fine you might  want to check the scope with a collimator or try it on another’ rifle, if it’s clear that the scope is the issue -  a return to Vortex would be the best option - as far as I know it’s an unlimited lifetime warranty that’s not restricted to the original purchaser.

https://vortexoptics.com/vip-warranty

I got bored so…..A quick dive into 2011 pistol magazine terminology. The two pistols are made by STI / Staccato (same company but rebranded as STI has another meaning). They are single action only pistols of John Browning 1911 design. 

The smaller one Staccato C (think Colt Officer / Commander) has a single feed magazine of 8-10 rounds of 9mm. Technically a 1911 design (although Staccato still call it a 2011). 

2011 is trade marked to STI / Staccato and denotes 1911 design pistols with wider bodied double stacked magazines. As the pictures show the magazines are wider and come in various lengths - 140mm, 170mm being common (interestingly the length is given in metric mm units).

The magazine design is fat originally to accommodate 45acp rounds although 9mm / 38 Super Auto Comp is the main stay of IPSC / USPSA Open Class which was the reason for developing a high capacity 1911 in the first place. You end up with a separate frame and grip module ( grips are commonly plastic, aluminium or stainless steel ). Frames are billet cnc machined steel.

Limcat Stainless grip module on my STI Costa Carry Comp pistol replacing the original STI plastic grip module.

The high capacity magazines were originally unreliable until Staccato developed a Gen 2  version and highly quality magazines from MBX became available. Now Staccato have released a CS pistol aimed at concealed carry with a 16 round magazine but thinner than their 2011 magazines - if your not stuffing 45ACP into them, they don’t need to be that fat.  It will be interesting to see if the market will change to a new magazine format or not.

If you are going to keep it and want a PRS type chassis It’s worth contacting Delboy on here, I think he is doing one for an Annie. The ones I have seen are excellent. 

Very nice rifle by the way. 

Many ways to skin this cat 🐈. As others a quality bore guide and rod are essential, my preference is for Tipton carbon rods. They do decent bore guides too but I also have others. A bore guide can become a crutch though. Cleaning rest are another good idea. Patches I tend to cut from role and cleaning products I tend to use Forrest bore foam and Boretech carbon and then copper remover ( in that order), with an alcohol degreaser between the applications. 

Borescopes can be cheap (Teslong) and will show you if your process is working or not or if specific areas need cleaning - like removing a carbon ring. It’s not the first thing that I would buy but are cheap enough these days.

 I also dump what I can into an ultrasonic cleaner but caution with some finishes.

From my perspective forums tend to be the same people talking about the same things. To have meaningful input (discussion) you need to have experience but the U.K. shooting community seems to be cut off at the knees by legislation that doesn’t encourage new shooters, juniors and families to enter the sport so you never gains new or different perspectives but rather the same demographic in the same echo chamber.

There are now AI models ( Bing, Chat gpt and as of Monday Bard) that I think will impact forums as they develop, where information is instant, is interactive and refined. It’s much more than a traditional database like google which I can see rapidly becoming obsolete (hence Bard).