-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
223/5.56 trainer build barrel selection
- Thread starter Kyskeet
- Start date
1-8 or 1-7 will do equally well, assuming it's a quality barrel (which Bartlein is). Once it's fast enough, it becomes a non-issue.
5R or not, doesn't matter. Not worth even thinking about.
What chamber are you thinking of? I like Wylde, just because it's very forgiving, shoots 223 and 5.56, I've had several barrels chambered in it, and is well proven in NRA highpower for accuracy and reliability.
5R or not, doesn't matter. Not worth even thinking about.
What chamber are you thinking of? I like Wylde, just because it's very forgiving, shoots 223 and 5.56, I've had several barrels chambered in it, and is well proven in NRA highpower for accuracy and reliability.
Last edited:
I have to agree. I am testing 223 Wylde 26" barrels for a review but one I received us a 223 Rem Match Mullerworks cut rifled barrel. It's throated a little longer than a 223 wylde. I'm shooting 80 Amax at 2935 with H4895 in Lapua brass with no pressure signs.
Damn! I was pretty happy with 2820 out of my 24" bartlien. I'm running 25.0 grains of varget but have some IMR 4895 lying around.
I have found H4895 to be 100fps faster than Varget and just as accurate. 25g Varget produces 2970 for me while 25g H4895 produces 3084
I don't (actually can't) train at full LR distances. Those distances are only realistically available to me when actually engaged in comp.
Consequently, I take as much advantage as possible of the shorter distance (300yd) that is actually available to me. This means I will maximize the effects of crosswinds, while eliminating inherent inaccuracy in the load. IMHO, lighter weight varmint bullets optimize this set of criteria. I shoot Nosler 50gr Ballistic tips at the Nosler 'most accurate' charge of 26.0gr of Varget. While absolute accuracy is somewhat important, consistency of ammunition performance is more important, IMHO; my view is to eliminate everything but the shooter from the realistic hierarchy of variables.
My available training venue has a reputation for calmer conditions before Noon and significantly more active winds after Noon, and this can be a useful set of circumstances for training..
While a 1:8*" twist is sufficient for the heavier bullets cited, and will work quite well enough with the 50gr bullets too; I keep a 24" 1:9" bolt rifle for training.
While I realize lots of folks have the notion that the trainer needs be as closely identical to the comp gun, I have found that not to be the case in my own instance. In my reality, all the rifle needs to do is provide an accurate means to get the necessary trigger time under as challenging a set of conditions as one can arrange. How it fits and how it operates falls under what I consider a basic rifleman's necessary set of adaptable skills, with the emphasis on adaptability. Every time the shooter imposes limitations that dictate narrower and narrower equipment requirements, they also impose limitations on their own versatility, and I prefer not to accept such limitations.
As I try to set up our Granddaughter with literally generic identical equipment to mine (like the question of why I have a pair of virtually identical Stag Model 6 Super Varminters, and have 'standardized' on the Savage 11VT rifle), I have found that even 'identical' rifles have idiosyncrasies and quirks, and suspect that the idea that the notion of requiring close similarities between trainer and comp gun may be less supportable by reality, and may even be impossible to truly achieve. IMHO, the key attributes of a trainer are that it be reliable, and that it perform with significant consistency. The key goal is to remove all of the variables that are not caused by the shooters themselves. Slavish identicality between trainer and comp rifle are not, to me, a necessity. All we're really trying to achieve here is the recogintion of where marksmanship ability breaks down, and how to improve upon it.
IMHO, whatever one shoots (within reason), it all comes down to wind skills, sight picture, and shot release. As long as I size my targets proportionately, the distance and winds are scalable, especially with bullets of a significantly lower BC. This is why I used to advance the concept of training with rimfire, and I still feel the same on that; I am just currently reflecting (somewhat beyond the actual need) the recent unavailability of rimfire ammo. The very susceptibility of the rimfire bullet's lower BC to crosswinds becomes an attribute, because it more greatly emphasizes the need for more developed wind skills.
I've become accustomed to enjoying the better control of ammunition characteristics that handloading .223 had provided me over recent years.
I almost never shoot factory ammo anymore, with the singular exception that I have a significant stock of 2008-2010 PPU 55gr FMJ that we use for plinking and bulk practice, and retain the brass as my handloading component source. The .223 PPU reloads very well, and while the 55 FMJ's loading is less accurate, it is predictably so, and this all factors in; because as long as ammunition performance is consistent and predictable, levels of accuracy are more a matter of comparison, than of disqualification for consideration. When the ammo is less accurate, but predictably so, all one really needs to do is to use a larger target.
So in this instance, shooting the PPU ammo is cheap enough to be more economical than buying new components (especially since I already own it...), and doing highly repetitious practice with it simply improves its utility overall.
BTW, I consider plinking as useful a form of training, suitable for developing 'off the comp range' capabilities, like hasty snapshot targeting, and small game hunting. This is the reason why I built myself a bottom dollar, 'quick and dirty' 16" upper.
All of my .223 rifles employ the 5.56 chamber, as I believe that allows the greatest variety of possibilities for ammunition selection. I am constantly weighing compromises between ultimate accuracy and the practical limits thereof. I have always considered such matters to be a trade-off, and prefer practicality over the potential fragility of ultimate accuracy. One needs to draw that line often. I feel that as long as one can achieve reasonably good accuracy with significant reliability, some sacrifices in ultimate accuracy are quite supportable (especially if they get one out of the loading room and onto the range more often).
I am 71, and know the bill is coming due all too soon enough, and I value range time far higher than I do handloading time.
Greg
Consequently, I take as much advantage as possible of the shorter distance (300yd) that is actually available to me. This means I will maximize the effects of crosswinds, while eliminating inherent inaccuracy in the load. IMHO, lighter weight varmint bullets optimize this set of criteria. I shoot Nosler 50gr Ballistic tips at the Nosler 'most accurate' charge of 26.0gr of Varget. While absolute accuracy is somewhat important, consistency of ammunition performance is more important, IMHO; my view is to eliminate everything but the shooter from the realistic hierarchy of variables.
My available training venue has a reputation for calmer conditions before Noon and significantly more active winds after Noon, and this can be a useful set of circumstances for training..
While a 1:8*" twist is sufficient for the heavier bullets cited, and will work quite well enough with the 50gr bullets too; I keep a 24" 1:9" bolt rifle for training.
While I realize lots of folks have the notion that the trainer needs be as closely identical to the comp gun, I have found that not to be the case in my own instance. In my reality, all the rifle needs to do is provide an accurate means to get the necessary trigger time under as challenging a set of conditions as one can arrange. How it fits and how it operates falls under what I consider a basic rifleman's necessary set of adaptable skills, with the emphasis on adaptability. Every time the shooter imposes limitations that dictate narrower and narrower equipment requirements, they also impose limitations on their own versatility, and I prefer not to accept such limitations.
As I try to set up our Granddaughter with literally generic identical equipment to mine (like the question of why I have a pair of virtually identical Stag Model 6 Super Varminters, and have 'standardized' on the Savage 11VT rifle), I have found that even 'identical' rifles have idiosyncrasies and quirks, and suspect that the idea that the notion of requiring close similarities between trainer and comp gun may be less supportable by reality, and may even be impossible to truly achieve. IMHO, the key attributes of a trainer are that it be reliable, and that it perform with significant consistency. The key goal is to remove all of the variables that are not caused by the shooters themselves. Slavish identicality between trainer and comp rifle are not, to me, a necessity. All we're really trying to achieve here is the recogintion of where marksmanship ability breaks down, and how to improve upon it.
IMHO, whatever one shoots (within reason), it all comes down to wind skills, sight picture, and shot release. As long as I size my targets proportionately, the distance and winds are scalable, especially with bullets of a significantly lower BC. This is why I used to advance the concept of training with rimfire, and I still feel the same on that; I am just currently reflecting (somewhat beyond the actual need) the recent unavailability of rimfire ammo. The very susceptibility of the rimfire bullet's lower BC to crosswinds becomes an attribute, because it more greatly emphasizes the need for more developed wind skills.
I've become accustomed to enjoying the better control of ammunition characteristics that handloading .223 had provided me over recent years.
I almost never shoot factory ammo anymore, with the singular exception that I have a significant stock of 2008-2010 PPU 55gr FMJ that we use for plinking and bulk practice, and retain the brass as my handloading component source. The .223 PPU reloads very well, and while the 55 FMJ's loading is less accurate, it is predictably so, and this all factors in; because as long as ammunition performance is consistent and predictable, levels of accuracy are more a matter of comparison, than of disqualification for consideration. When the ammo is less accurate, but predictably so, all one really needs to do is to use a larger target.
So in this instance, shooting the PPU ammo is cheap enough to be more economical than buying new components (especially since I already own it...), and doing highly repetitious practice with it simply improves its utility overall.
BTW, I consider plinking as useful a form of training, suitable for developing 'off the comp range' capabilities, like hasty snapshot targeting, and small game hunting. This is the reason why I built myself a bottom dollar, 'quick and dirty' 16" upper.
All of my .223 rifles employ the 5.56 chamber, as I believe that allows the greatest variety of possibilities for ammunition selection. I am constantly weighing compromises between ultimate accuracy and the practical limits thereof. I have always considered such matters to be a trade-off, and prefer practicality over the potential fragility of ultimate accuracy. One needs to draw that line often. I feel that as long as one can achieve reasonably good accuracy with significant reliability, some sacrifices in ultimate accuracy are quite supportable (especially if they get one out of the loading room and onto the range more often).
I am 71, and know the bill is coming due all too soon enough, and I value range time far higher than I do handloading time.
Greg
Last edited:
That's because I try to alter the training reality to put greatest emphasis on the most important skills. When one really considers the task, a lot of the 'common wisdom' needs to become counterintuitive.
What's also important is to make that training reality achievable without needing to find more distant, and more inaccessible, specialized venues.
Greg
What's also important is to make that training reality achievable without needing to find more distant, and more inaccessible, specialized venues.
Greg
I totally disagree but to each their own. I see no value in slinging 50g bullets out of a 223 as a practice/helper to shooting comps between 300-1000 with a 6mm/6.5mm comp rifle.
I have identical actions (Bighorn TL3), identical XLR chassis, identical Jewel triggers, M24 6.5mm 26" barrel on my 6.5x47L vs a Bull profile 26" .223 barrel on my 223 trainer. Same Harris Bipods and same Gen2 Razor 4.5-27 optics. QD Can brake/mount on the x47L vs no brake on the 223 to mimic recoil as much as possible.
Shooting 140 Hybrids at 2800 out of the x47L vs 80 Amax at 2934 out of the 223... They have identical ballistics out to 500yds and close to each other to 800.. In my eyes, having identical systems so muscle memory, feel and fitment are the same between them with very similar ballistics makes for the perfect training rifle all while saving a large amount of money while doing it. 12.5g less powder, Bullets that are $100 cheaper per 500, brass that is $50+ cheaper per 100, ability to make ammo fast on the 650.
Everyones different....
140 Hybrid 6.5x47L
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/Z4ewiiC.jpg"}[/IMG2]
80 Amax 223
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/USkArdE.jpg"}[/IMG2]
I have identical actions (Bighorn TL3), identical XLR chassis, identical Jewel triggers, M24 6.5mm 26" barrel on my 6.5x47L vs a Bull profile 26" .223 barrel on my 223 trainer. Same Harris Bipods and same Gen2 Razor 4.5-27 optics. QD Can brake/mount on the x47L vs no brake on the 223 to mimic recoil as much as possible.
Shooting 140 Hybrids at 2800 out of the x47L vs 80 Amax at 2934 out of the 223... They have identical ballistics out to 500yds and close to each other to 800.. In my eyes, having identical systems so muscle memory, feel and fitment are the same between them with very similar ballistics makes for the perfect training rifle all while saving a large amount of money while doing it. 12.5g less powder, Bullets that are $100 cheaper per 500, brass that is $50+ cheaper per 100, ability to make ammo fast on the 650.
Everyones different....
140 Hybrid 6.5x47L
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/Z4ewiiC.jpg"}[/IMG2]
80 Amax 223
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/i.imgur.com\/USkArdE.jpg"}[/IMG2]
Last edited:
1 in 7 twist for sure to stabilize the heavier 223/556 rounds. I have two 1 in 7 twist 223s (16.5 and 20 inch barrels) you will likely not want to shoot anything lighter than 55 gr, at least mine won't. Due to the more rapid twist rate of the 1:7, they start spinning off on me.
Some of us still like and shoot 308 Winchester primarily. Matching its ballistics in a cheaper to feed rifle will require something other than your solution.
No, we don't disagree, we just favor different approaches; and that's what makes The 'Hide great.
It all comes out in the wash.
I think that if one can develop wind skills that deliver good hits with a low BC bullet in the wind, it should become proportionately easier to manage the same thing with a higher BC bullet.
Now if someone doesn't want to see any correlation there, fine and good, they have that option.
IMHO, the lower BC bullet allows the same wind deflections at shorter distances, simplifying both the choice of venues, and the process of observation.
Alternatively, one can shoot the more expensive choices at the full distance, requiring (probably) more travel, more expensive optics, more expensive ammunition, and more time involved in setting up, maintaining targets, and breaking everything back on down. Their choice...
One pays their money and thakes their chances.
One thing i do think we can agree on; to get good in the wind, we need to shoot a lot in the wind, regardless of what we're shooting.
Greg
It all comes out in the wash.
I think that if one can develop wind skills that deliver good hits with a low BC bullet in the wind, it should become proportionately easier to manage the same thing with a higher BC bullet.
Now if someone doesn't want to see any correlation there, fine and good, they have that option.
IMHO, the lower BC bullet allows the same wind deflections at shorter distances, simplifying both the choice of venues, and the process of observation.
Alternatively, one can shoot the more expensive choices at the full distance, requiring (probably) more travel, more expensive optics, more expensive ammunition, and more time involved in setting up, maintaining targets, and breaking everything back on down. Their choice...
One pays their money and thakes their chances.
One thing i do think we can agree on; to get good in the wind, we need to shoot a lot in the wind, regardless of what we're shooting.
Greg
Last edited:
That's a great point.
I also enjoy shooting 55gr FMJ's at close range through my 223 Ackley. I also have an XLR chassis on my trainer and comp rifle, same barrel length and weight, scope and trigger all matching.. . 99% of my 223 training is positional. So I put a 4" target at 200 yards and whack away. I rarely take it beyond 300 yards, but all targets are 2 moa or less. So it begs the question, what's the difference between my 6mm Creedmoor shooting a 14" target at 700 or 800 yards, versus my 223 shooting a 6" target at 300 yards? I still have to hold wind on the 223, not identical wind seeing as how it would take gale force winds to get me to hold anything past the edge with my 110gr SMK at 3100fps at 300 yards. But I have a wind hold of some sort the very large majority of the time.
Pretty much all my prone distance shooting is done with my Creedmoor. But the 223 trainer is money for everything else. I have bucket loads of brass and a high speed 650 to crank out ammo. So it's an invaluable training tool that saves me a ton of time and money. And if I want to play at distance with my 223 Ackley I can. It's a hammer with 80gr pills. I think I'm going to shoot a match or two with it next year.
My philosophy is that the purpose of a trainer is cost savings, with the goal of being able to have more trigger time, barricade practice time, and wind reading time.
I'm running an 8 twist Shilen button rifled blank because I found a good deal on it. Had a gunsmith spin up a shouldered barrel for my TL-3, it shoots 1/2 MOA and I can load ammo progressive on the Dillon. I am shooting the Hornady 75gr BTHP because it's cheap and my barrel seems to like it. Bought a brick of 4000 bullets from Graf's recently. Not a super fast load, just 23.2gr of XBR8208 in Lake City surplus brass. Shoot a couple hundred rounds per week off a barricade at a 12" and 6" gong at 525 yards and a 66% IPSC at 575 yards. It's a good challenge and great training.
So to answer your question, 7 or 8 twist, rifling doesn't matter, move past the little details and get working on trigger time.
I'm running an 8 twist Shilen button rifled blank because I found a good deal on it. Had a gunsmith spin up a shouldered barrel for my TL-3, it shoots 1/2 MOA and I can load ammo progressive on the Dillon. I am shooting the Hornady 75gr BTHP because it's cheap and my barrel seems to like it. Bought a brick of 4000 bullets from Graf's recently. Not a super fast load, just 23.2gr of XBR8208 in Lake City surplus brass. Shoot a couple hundred rounds per week off a barricade at a 12" and 6" gong at 525 yards and a 66% IPSC at 575 yards. It's a good challenge and great training.
So to answer your question, 7 or 8 twist, rifling doesn't matter, move past the little details and get working on trigger time.
Sandwarrior comments that every shot has a purpose; and that is so true on so many levels.
My Granddaughter does a lot of trigger time at 100yd using PPU 55gr FMJBT through my (now her) original Stag Model 6. Shot from the Stag 6, the 55FMJBT shoots around 1MOA about as well as anything else at 100yd. Moreover, we both do this, fed from the magazine, with brass catchers employed; and the PPU brass forms the basis for most of my handloads. I see this as a win/win proposition. We're maintaining our skills, the ammo was bought nearly a decade ago, so It costs us nothing currently, and it becomes free brass for handloading.
I just found a 1/2MOA-ish 100yd load for the Stag 6 that makes the PPU brass work as good as most other brass. FYI it's PPU brass, CCI BR-4, 50gr Nosler Ballistic Tip, and 26.6 gr of Varget, SWAG velocity around 3250fps. It's a night and day difference in this rifle. Time to stock up on this load over/before the Winter. The other test loads may even work well in one or more of the 6 rifles/Uppers I have that are chambered in 5.56/.223; should be fun finding out.
Next week we test variations on the HDY 75gr HPBT Match load.
While 1/2 MOA might seem like worthy goal, I keep backing away from getting hung up on the numbers. A good shot is a good shot, in and of itself,. The numbers obviously mean something, but not a whole lot to me; I just like hitting what I aim at. I used to use the term 'defeating the target' which does not have any numeric relevance in my mind. I should probably start talking in such terms again, and leave the hangups to others.
Greg
My Granddaughter does a lot of trigger time at 100yd using PPU 55gr FMJBT through my (now her) original Stag Model 6. Shot from the Stag 6, the 55FMJBT shoots around 1MOA about as well as anything else at 100yd. Moreover, we both do this, fed from the magazine, with brass catchers employed; and the PPU brass forms the basis for most of my handloads. I see this as a win/win proposition. We're maintaining our skills, the ammo was bought nearly a decade ago, so It costs us nothing currently, and it becomes free brass for handloading.
I just found a 1/2MOA-ish 100yd load for the Stag 6 that makes the PPU brass work as good as most other brass. FYI it's PPU brass, CCI BR-4, 50gr Nosler Ballistic Tip, and 26.6 gr of Varget, SWAG velocity around 3250fps. It's a night and day difference in this rifle. Time to stock up on this load over/before the Winter. The other test loads may even work well in one or more of the 6 rifles/Uppers I have that are chambered in 5.56/.223; should be fun finding out.
Next week we test variations on the HDY 75gr HPBT Match load.
While 1/2 MOA might seem like worthy goal, I keep backing away from getting hung up on the numbers. A good shot is a good shot, in and of itself,. The numbers obviously mean something, but not a whole lot to me; I just like hitting what I aim at. I used to use the term 'defeating the target' which does not have any numeric relevance in my mind. I should probably start talking in such terms again, and leave the hangups to others.
Greg
Last edited:
I have been shooting 75 Hornady BTHP Match out of my 223 1:8" bolt gun. Unfortunately my accuracy node is pretty slow in that gun. I can't believe someone is lobbing 80s at 2900+. That's awesome!
I agree that I'd get a 1:7. No downside really, except that it limits you on the low side to stuff you probably wouldn't ever shoot for the purposes of this rifle.
Is H4895 a temp stable powder?
I agree that I'd get a 1:7. No downside really, except that it limits you on the low side to stuff you probably wouldn't ever shoot for the purposes of this rifle.
Is H4895 a temp stable powder?
H4895 is very stable.
One would be surprised how light of a bullet you can fire through a 1-7 and not destroy it. When I competed in NRA/CMP service rifle I ran into a deal for 45 gr Winchester JHP varmint ammo. No idea how fast it was going but out of a 1-7 20" tube they shot tight little knots at 100 yards and relatively well at 200. Never had one vanish.
One would be surprised how light of a bullet you can fire through a 1-7 and not destroy it. When I competed in NRA/CMP service rifle I ran into a deal for 45 gr Winchester JHP varmint ammo. No idea how fast it was going but out of a 1-7 20" tube they shot tight little knots at 100 yards and relatively well at 200. Never had one vanish.
Heck, I get 3100fps out of my 223 Ackley with a 28" tube with 80gr SMK's. That's with 25.5grs 8208XBR and CCI BR4 Match primer. At my altitude it doesn't go subsonic till out past 1300 yards.
I love the fast twist .223 and have built a lot of them. 1-7.7 to shoot 75 and 80 a-max'a an now ELD's. It all started with building a trainer for myself to mirror my match gun. I then use to loan it to shooters attending my shooting school who had a rifle break down. It worked so well I know have 6 on the line. We shoot them to 1000 yards in every class. My favorite rifle to shoot for sure. Just plain fun. Mine are Krieger 4 groove. PM me and I will share with you our school load.
Jamie
Wolf Precision, Inc
www.wolfprecision.net
Jamie
Wolf Precision, Inc
www.wolfprecision.net
