• Win a RIX Storm S3 Thermal Imaging Scope!

    To enter, all you need to do is add an image of yourself at the range below!

    Join the contest

Accuracy International Picture Thread

Took the old girl out today. Meant to shoot the 6x47 barrel but apparently I forgot to seat the bullets deep enough and couldn't chamber the rounds.

Then screwed on the 16" 6.5creed barrel to do test some loads and was blowing primers with only 40.5gr of h4350 with a 142smk jumping .020". Tried 40.8 and had ejector swipes hard. Stopped there and scratched my head. Last year this barrel shot up to 42gr without pressure. No carbon ring...squeaky clean. Bought a box of 140 fgmm and shot the middle group and right group. 5rds each. Only difference is the middle group was shot with a Atlas cal and the right was a Harris. Suspected for a bit some of my issues was the Atlas, have similar inconsistency in other rifles i use it with. So fuck these fancy bipods... Harris fo life!

View attachment 8630035View attachment 8630036View attachment 8630037View attachment 8630038
Unless it’s totally broken and falling apart, a bipod did not make the difference in those groups
 
IMG_4359.jpeg
 
@vh20 less the bipod itself but how I'm loading them and the harris works better for me. Going to test a bit more but explains why I always shoot one gun with a harris better than everything else that uses the Cals.
Mmmm, ok... I've got nothing against the Harris (I have about 4 of them), but the CAL is a more stable platform. That said, there is no way you go from what looks like a 1.5 MOA group to about a <0.2 MOA group just from switching bipods unless something is very wrong with one of them. There is something else at play there. I shoot the CALs better, but the difference is minimal, not huge like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MK20
Please pardon this moment of self-indulgence:

You know how there's always that one guy who corrects someone when they say "My rifle is a 0.XX MOA rifle", by saying:

"Oh yeah? So you're telling me that you shot at least 5 (and more appropriately 10) 5-shot groups and averaged them out to be 0.XX MOA? I doubt you did. I bet more likely than not, you shot one group that was 0.XX MOA and declared -against every statistical "law" in existence- that that was your rifle's actual capability."

Yeah, I'M THAT GUY. IT'S ME! I hate it when people claim accuracy based on one (or less than 5) groups. The only thing worse is when people claim that 3 shot "groups" count. They do not.

With that said . . . . I shot the best 1,000 yard group of my life yesterday. Unfortunately, it was on steel and not paper (which is another grounds for disqualification when declaring accuracy capability). But it (again, 5 shots) measured 1-13/16" inches. I followed it up (with a 20 minute range break in-between) with another group where the first four shots were within 3.6" (0.34 MOA), but the 5th frustratingly ended another 2.5" up (being frustrated with a 0.573 MOA group at 1,000 is pretty great).

I forgot to take phot of the rifle, but it's my AXSA with its "practice" (not even the "good" one) 6.5CM Barrel. 140 Berger Hybrids in Lapua Brass (about the 16th firing on the brass), 43.2gr H4350 (velocity 2787 fps) . CCI BR4 Primers. S&B PMII (the "de-milled military 5-25 version). Elite Iron BiPod. TBAC Ultra 9 (6.5).

It doesn't look like 5 shots, but it is.


View attachment 8625525

View attachment 8625526

Numbered (in no particular order)

View attachment 8625644

Follow up group first four out of five shots:

View attachment 8625527
So that guy's parents telling everyone they never had a child and proud of that decision.