How were '03 and Garand barrels rifled?

[sandwarrior]

NRA high power is a different thing than rack M16's. Service rifle is the same. I shot the M16A1 a lot and it was accurate. Certainly more accurate than any 1903. It was a "run-of-the-mill" General Motors. I shot 40 for 40 every qual after I really learned how to shoot them (3 quals before that). Except one where we shot the minimized target at 1000 inches. I registered (best of three) a 100 with that. That is ten shots into a 3/8th in. circle. The other two scores were 98 and 99.

What I said was 1903's were accepted for use with up to 6 moa. Remington didn't start building them until 1940 And, yes at that time, they did a better job than the early 1903's. Not saying they were all that bad, just like most M16's will shoot well under an inch @100 but their acceptance range is 4 moa. There was a broader acceptance range. Neither of those kind of rifles made it onto a competition rack. And usually, competition rifles of both get taken apart, measured, poor spec parts replaced with high spec parts for competition. But, those have to remain "service". You can't change out to specialty parts.

Your last line doesn't make sense. 3"x3" @ 1000 inches is a three inch group at 27.5 yards. They will hold much better than that. The least acceptable 1903 rifle would hold half that size. Typically, they would hold 2-3" @ 100 yds. in ideal conditions. Which is 1/4 of what you stated.

 

[Frank Green]

@Frank Green - whenever yall made those Aubert Duval GKH test barrels, I know you said yall had some trouble with tooling breaking.. but once the blanks were drilled and reamed, did you have any issues actually cutting the rifling on them?
It seems that button rifling makers require the steel to be softer for a consistent finished barrel, would you agree with that? Eg I read a lot about folks saying that Shilens for example are on the softer side.. while Kriegers, or yall's barrels, are comparatively harder...?

Not tooling breaking per say but just a pita to work with.

Take what you hear with a grain of salt on this or that barrel maker liking softer steel per say and in this case Shilen. I know some button makers that either have used or get the similar spec material that we use. I cannot speak for everyone as I don't work at all the places.

It's not necessarily the hardness that we like but the hardness and the chemical composition of the material has a lot to do with it as well. I'll say we like a little harder as it seems again seems like it cuts nice but again though the composition of the material plays a big part in that. Yes I've heard that the button guys like softer material for the button to form the rifling etc...again though take that with a grain of salt on what you hear or read on the internet.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

NRA high power is a different thing than rack M16's. Service rifle is the same. I shot the M16A1 a lot and it was accurate. Certainly more accurate than any 1903. It was a "run-of-the-mill" General Motors. I shot 40 for 40 every qual after I really learned how to shoot them (3 quals before that). Except one where we shot the minimized target at 1000 inches. I registered (best of three) a 100 with that. That is ten shots into a 3/8th in. circle. The other two scores were 98 and 99.

What I said was 1903's were accepted for use with up to 6 moa. Remington didn't start building them until 1940 And, yes at that time, they did a better job than the early 1903's. Not saying they were all that bad, just like most M16's will shoot well under an inch @100 but their acceptance range is 4 moa. There was a broader acceptance range. Neither of those kind of rifles made it onto a competition rack. And usually, competition rifles of both get taken apart, measured, poor spec parts replaced with high spec parts for competition. But, those have to remain "service". You can't change out to specialty parts.

Your last line doesn't make sense. 3"x3" @ 1000 inches is a three inch group at 27.5 yards. They will hold much better than that. The least acceptable 1903 rifle would hold half that size. Typically, they would hold 2-3" @ 100 yds. in ideal conditions. Which is 1/4 of what you stated.

I was talking about Garands on the 1000" qual, cant remember where I saw that tho
As far as High Power Service Rifle, heres a upper with a free floated heavy SS Bartlein optics ready that would be similar to whats in common use on the line at Camp Perry right now:
https://compasslake.com/product/bartlien-service-rifle-upper-optics-ready/
And back in the 60's and 70's, this would've been a good choice for a Service Rifle, Mr @Bart B. earlier talked about his Garands that were likely very similar and probably built by the same gunsmith, Don McCoy. As Mr @Bart B. said, supposedly these will do 4" at 600yd with the right wind calls:
https://www.icollector.com/item.aspx?i=18328797
Heres the rules for NRA Service Rifle AR's
U.S. Service Rifle 5.56 mm M-16 series–– • Must be chambered for the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO (.223) cartridge. • The gas operating system must be fully operable and adhere to the original M-16 rifl e design (i.e. Stoner design, gas impingement system) or have a piston- operated gas system. • The receiver must be separately machined from the handguard; the two parts must be separable. • The barrel may be no longer than 20 inches; fl ash suppressor are not required, but if the barrel has a fl ash suppressor, it shall not be included in the barrel length measurement. • Upper receivers and barrels may not be changed during the fi ring of any event. • Metal or synthetic (polymer) magazines, standard issue or commercial equivalent, with standard service 20 or 30- round box magazine dimensions must be attached during the fi ring of all courses and in all positions. A 10- round magazine with the extra external dimensions as a standard service 20-round box magazine may be used. A dummy magazine with a ramp for single shot loading may be used if this magazine has the same external dimensions as the standard service 20-round box magazine. Magazines may not contain added weights. • The rifl e may have an optical sight (refl ective sights are considered optical sights) with a maximum power of 4.5X installed on the receiver. Variable scopes with a maximum of 4.5X are permitted. Only commercially manufactured scopes that were produced with a maximum magnifi cation of 4.5X and that have a maximum objective lens of 34 mm may be used. If an optical sight is used, the same optical sight must be used in all stages of a course of fi re ( changing sights is not permitted). The centerline of an optical sight shall be no higher than 3.5 inches above the centerline of the bore. • Alternatively, the rifl e may be equipped with issue-type metallic front and rear sights. Metallic sights, if used, must have an M16 type sight design with the rear sight in the carry handle and the front sight in the standard M-16 location. • Butt- stocks may vary in length and be either fi xed or collapsible. Collapsible or adjustable length stocks may be adjusted during an event, but butt-stocks that allow for other adjustments such as the cheek-piece height or butt-plate location may not be used. • Only standard A1 or A2 type pistol grips may be used. • Quad rails or similar hand guards may be used.
https://competitions.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-book.pdf



A totally different thing from a standard M16A1 or M16A2, is what I meant. But for the record I do believe the military holds inter-service competitions that are off limits to civvies, and in those I do believe they use standard off the rack M16A2's/M16A4's..? I know Ive seen the Marines shooting in those type competitions at least..
@sandwarrior on Mausers/03s/etc, those little screws/cross-bolts on the sides of the stock, what are those there for? Whats the purpose?

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

@Frank Green Im still surprised any current barrel maker would straighten their barrels EG: Bergara.. would you say this is a common practice, at least among button rifled barrel manufacturers?

 

[sandwarrior]

I was talking about Garands on the 1000" qual, cant remember where I saw that tho
As far as High Power Service Rifle, heres a upper with a free floated SS Bartlein optics ready that would be similar to whats in common use on the line at Camp Perry right now:
https://compasslake.com/product/bartlien-service-rifle-upper-optics-ready/
Heres the rules
U.S. Service Rifl e 5.56 mm M-16 series–– • Must be chambered for the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO (.223) cartridge. • The gas operating system must be fully operable and adhere to the original M-16 rifl e design (i.e. Stoner design, gas impingement system) or have a piston- operated gas system. • The receiver must be separately machined from the handguard; the two parts must be separable. • The barrel may be no longer than 20 inches; fl ash suppressor are not required, but if the barrel has a fl ash suppressor, it shall not be included in the barrel length measurement. • Upper receivers and barrels may not be changed during the fi ring of any event. • Metal or synthetic (polymer) magazines, standard issue or commercial equivalent, with standard service 20 or 30- round box magazine dimensions must be attached during the fi ring of all courses and in all positions. A 10- round magazine with the extra external dimensions as a standard service 20-round box magazine may be used. A dummy magazine with a ramp for single shot loading may be used if this magazine has the same external dimensions as the standard service 20-round box magazine. Magazines may not contain added weights. • The rifl e may have an optical sight (refl ective sights are considered optical sights) with a maximum power of 4.5X installed on the receiver. Variable scopes with a maximum of 4.5X are permitted. Only commercially manufactured scopes that were produced with a maximum magnifi cation of 4.5X and that have a maximum objective lens of 34 mm may be used. If an optical sight is used, the same optical sight must be used in all stages of a course of fi re ( changing sights is not permitted). The centerline of an optical sight shall be no higher than 3.5 inches above the centerline of the bore. • Alternatively, the rifl e may be equipped with issue-type metallic front and rear sights. Metallic sights, if used, must have an M16 type sight design with the rear sight in the carry handle and the front sight in the standard M-16 location. • Butt- stocks may vary in length and be either fi xed or collapsible. Collapsible or adjustable length stocks may be adjusted during an event, but butt-stocks that allow for other adjustments such as the cheek-piece height or butt-plate location may not be used. • Only standard A1 or A2 type pistol grips may be used. • Quad rails or similar hand guards may be used.
https://competitions.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-book.pdf

A totally different thing from a standard M16A1 or M16A2, is what I meant. But for the record I do believe the military holds inter-service competitions that are off limits to civvies, and in those I do believe they use standard off the rack M16A2's/M16A4's..? I know Ive seen the Marines shooting in those type competitions at least..

It wasn't until a few years ago that "Optics" were allowed on service rifles. That argument came about because various optics were issued in the most recent conflict. It's a fair argument, but is not in keeping the competition on an even playing field. An optic sighted service rifle will have an advantage over open sighted service rifles.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Frank, this is in open court so I'll be brief. you ever need anything for GKH on boring and reaming, I've been at 15 yes 15ipm drilling 6mm holes straight on GKH, bang on for muzzle runout on drill and better than 16 surface finish. It's a method learned for sure, and you go thru about 3 changes of underwear in 5 minutes or less. The first time.

Yall's SR25 PC and PR dont mention any chrome lining, those and the SR15 LPR dont have it right? Also coulda swore yall were doing some SR25 6.5 Creedmoor uppers? Also, do yall use P&W machines at KAC? When did KAC get the machines to do barrels in-house?

Also curious.. how much if any effect does barrel finish and color have on heat? Eg: bead blasted SS, or black ceracoat vs tan, etc..? @Frank Green
Idk how valid it is but supposedly HK started making their G36's in FDE instead of black to try not absorbing so much heat? Apparently some G36's were left out in the sun laying on one side, and their zero shifted? I never got the full story on that.. but it was a big deal in Germany for a bit as I recall.

Also was reading about S&L, according to a gentleman that toured the shop, their rifling machines are German, purchased at the end of WW1. Have you ever seen any German(or any Euro) rifling(or drilling or reaming) machines @__JR__ ? If so what'd you think of em vs Pratts?:
http://shootingshed.co.uk/wp/2012/03/schultz-and-larsen-m97-dl-sporter/
"Cut at a rate of 'It can be calculated but not measured'" - anyone know what this means?

Thanks yall

 

[sandwarrior]

I was talking about Garands on the 1000" qual, cant remember where I saw that tho
As far as High Power Service Rifle, heres a upper with a free floated heavy SS Bartlein optics ready that would be similar to whats in common use on the line at Camp Perry right now:
https://compasslake.com/product/bartlien-service-rifle-upper-optics-ready/
And back in the 60's and 70's, this would've been a good choice for a Service Rifle, Mr @Bart B. earlier talked about his Garands that were likely very similar and probably built by the same gunsmith, Don McCoy. As Mr @Bart B. said, supposedly these will do 4" at 600yd with the right wind calls:
https://www.icollector.com/item.aspx?i=18328797
Heres the rules for NRA Service Rifle AR's
U.S. Service Rifle 5.56 mm M-16 series–– • Must be chambered for the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO (.223) cartridge. • The gas operating system must be fully operable and adhere to the original M-16 rifl e design (i.e. Stoner design, gas impingement system) or have a piston- operated gas system. • The receiver must be separately machined from the handguard; the two parts must be separable. • The barrel may be no longer than 20 inches; fl ash suppressor are not required, but if the barrel has a fl ash suppressor, it shall not be included in the barrel length measurement. • Upper receivers and barrels may not be changed during the fi ring of any event. • Metal or synthetic (polymer) magazines, standard issue or commercial equivalent, with standard service 20 or 30- round box magazine dimensions must be attached during the fi ring of all courses and in all positions. A 10- round magazine with the extra external dimensions as a standard service 20-round box magazine may be used. A dummy magazine with a ramp for single shot loading may be used if this magazine has the same external dimensions as the standard service 20-round box magazine. Magazines may not contain added weights. • The rifl e may have an optical sight (refl ective sights are considered optical sights) with a maximum power of 4.5X installed on the receiver. Variable scopes with a maximum of 4.5X are permitted. Only commercially manufactured scopes that were produced with a maximum magnifi cation of 4.5X and that have a maximum objective lens of 34 mm may be used. If an optical sight is used, the same optical sight must be used in all stages of a course of fi re ( changing sights is not permitted). The centerline of an optical sight shall be no higher than 3.5 inches above the centerline of the bore. • Alternatively, the rifl e may be equipped with issue-type metallic front and rear sights. Metallic sights, if used, must have an M16 type sight design with the rear sight in the carry handle and the front sight in the standard M-16 location. • Butt- stocks may vary in length and be either fi xed or collapsible. Collapsible or adjustable length stocks may be adjusted during an event, but butt-stocks that allow for other adjustments such as the cheek-piece height or butt-plate location may not be used. • Only standard A1 or A2 type pistol grips may be used. • Quad rails or similar hand guards may be used.
https://competitions.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-book.pdf



A totally different thing from a standard M16A1 or M16A2, is what I meant. But for the record I do believe the military holds inter-service competitions that are off limits to civvies, and in those I do believe they use standard off the rack M16A2's/M16A4's..? I know Ive seen the Marines shooting in those type competitions at least..
[B]@sandwarrior on Mausers/03s/etc, those little screws/cross-bolts on the sides of the stock, what are those there for? Whats the purpose?[/B]

That is a squared off cross-bolt to hold recoil to the rear. Rather than the lug sitting on "not fully dried/cured" wood, it allows the recoil to go directly against a piece of steel the full width of the stock. The piece of steel spreads recoil from side to side of the stock rather than the reduced size of the recoil lug. Also note: I mentioned "not fully dried/cured" wood. The recoil lug would have very destructive tendencies with that if the crossbolt were not added. It doesn't do all the much good either when the wood is dried. So, the cross-bolt is a great idea. Bedding is better, but that technology didn't hit the public until the '60's.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

That is a squared off cross-bolt to hold recoil to the rear. Rather than the lug sitting on "not fully dried/cured" wood, it allows the recoil to go directly against a piece of steel the full width of the stock. The piece of steel spreads recoil from side to side of the stock rather than the reduced size of the recoil lug. Also note: I mentioned "not fully dried/cured" wood. The recoil lug would have very destructive tendencies with that if the crossbolt were not added. It doesn't do all the much good either when the wood is dried. So, the cross-bolt is a great idea. Bedding is better, but that technology didn't hit the public until the '60's.

Interesting. Is there any worries over the tang area? Actually I suppose the cross-bolt takes care of that..? I know Ive seen Ian mention, on more than one of the odd-ball rifles hes covered, about a rifle's tang having a shape which wasn't friendly to the stock it sat in and causing splitting.. even a military trials rifle, I believe at least one example was a toggle locked IIRC.
Another thing Ian says tho is that rifles which require screws to hold some of it together are a flawed design.. ain't too sure what to make of that, what say yall?

 

[sandwarrior]

Interesting. Is there any worries over the tang area? Actually I suppose the cross-bolt takes care of that..? I know Ive seen Ian mention, on more than one of the odd-ball rifles hes covered, about a rifle's tang having a shape which wasn't friendly to the stock it sat in and causing splitting.. even a military trials rifle, I believe at least one example was a toggle locked IIRC.

If that crossbolt is not sitting just ever so slightly forward in relation to the rear tang, the rear tang is going to take a hit. If the wood is VERY green it could compress even with the crossbolt. If the recoil is taken up by the rear tang action screw, yes you would be due for a cracked stock. At the very least a busted out area around the tang. It usually shows right on top first.

This is why I like to bed the entire action. The front recoil lug could take up the major part of the recoil. But, if the rear tang is "right on" it takes even a bit of the recoil off the front lug. Meaning the whole bedding system acts as one, not any one part taking the bulk of it up. Friction along the entire action helps as well.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

@sandwarrior -I know the Germans had trouble with accuracy in trying to make a G43 sniper, just like the Russians with the SVT.. and Sweden seemed to be on good terms with the Germans during the war, do you know if they ever tried to make a Ljungman sniper? Germany made use of many foreign weapons during the war and I believe even officially adopted captured PEM's to mount on the K98? 6.5x55 is such a nice round and with the AG42 using a DI gas system, I wonder how it'd perform compared to the G43..

 

[Frank Green]

@Frank Green Im still surprised any current barrel maker would straighten their barrels EG: Bergara.. would you say this is a common practice, at least among button rifled barrel manufacturers?

I know it's still being done but who is all doing it and and don't know if some places that use to do it stopped doing it etc...I couldn't tell ya.

Again if you straighten a barrel in my opinion your inducing stress back or more stress into the barrel.

 

[Random Guy]

Sweden seemed to be on good terms with the Germans during the war, do you know if they ever tried to make a Ljungman sniper

A somewhat secretive deal was struck in which Germany initially supplied 4x Ajack scopes and mounts to Sweden in exchange for high-grade Swedish iron ore that was shipped via rail to Germany for their war effort, but after two years, Hitler ordered that optics could no longer be exported, as they were needed for the Germany Army tied down in the Eastern Front. After 1943, Sweden then had to make their own domestic scope, the M44, which was not very good compared to the German Ajack scopes that they got from 41-43'. I read that Sweden tested all of their M96 rifles for accuracy in the early years of WWII, and the most accurate ones were converted to M41 sniper rifles in 1941-44. Not sure any other country went through that much effort, although the UK also tested their Mk 4 conversions.

Attached is my example built on a 1900 Mauser action along with a 1941 dated scope. I've read that 5900 Swedish M41B sniper rifles were made, so I assume that was what they needed to equip their army, esp as a neutral country that avoided armed conflict in WWII. Combined with excellent ballistics of the standard GP41 ammo, and the practice of individually testing potential M41 sniper rifles - they were probably one of the most accurate sniper rifles of WWII.

The Swedes never bothered trying to mount a scope on the M42B (aka Ljungman) b/c they already had a very accurate sniper rifle in the M41, and probably not enough scopes anyhow. I think mounting one would have been a huge challenge given the lack of real estate on the receiver and associated violence of the action on an M42B. (fwiw, "M1 Thumb" is gentle compared to what happens within a Ljungman action during its powerful cycling movement, which would probably quickly beat to death a typical WWII era optic. Heavy-duty British Mk 32 scope would probably be the one exception).

After WWII, the M41s were updated in the mid-1950s to the M41B designation with Germany rebuilding all of the Ajack scopes with coated lenses, an improved mount was used, new rear sight, and various other small details were incorporated. I recall reading that they were actually used up till about 1990.

@Random Guy how do the K98’s do in Vintage Sniper?

I have never seen one used. Its mostly M1903, M1903/A4s, M1Cs/M1Ds, and ocassional foreign rifle like an M41B, Mosin-Nagant 91/30 and I saw one Enfield No 4 T being used. I have read about a Finnish M39/SOV as well, but I have never actually seen a German K98 used, but I'm sure some guys use them.

The first year of the CMP vintage sniper match was won by guys using a Swedish M41B (circa 2011 I think), but since then the 1903s with 8x scopes have won it, although I did note that the top score at Camp Perry vintage sniper match was tied one year with a Finnish M39/SOV rifle, which surprised me a little bit.

 

[sandwarrior]

@sandwarrior -I know the Germans had trouble with accuracy in trying to make a G43 sniper, just like the Russians with the SVT.. and Sweden seemed to be on good terms with the Germans during the war, do you know if they ever tried to make a Ljungman sniper? Germany made use of many foreign weapons during the war and I believe even officially adopted captured PEM's to mount on the K98? 6.5x55 is such a nice round and with the AG42 using a DI gas system, I wonder how it'd perform compared to the G43..

No idea about Sweden and Germany, except they were not on that good of terms.

The PEM sniper scope is actually a descendant of the ZFK39. First the PE, then the PEM. Not a lot of modification to get that to work. FWIW, we did the same. We used captured Tiger tanks, until we couldn't maintain them anymore. The Germans, and Swiss for that matter, each had a Fleet of rebuilt Mustangs. The Swiss ones were usually landed. The German ones, rebuilt from crashes.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

What would yall say is the best K98 sniper optic used? I coulda swore Germany had a 6x they used at one point? I maybe getting a near-clone with a Weaver 6x mixed up tho.. also @Random Guy over on the CMP forum they were talking about being disapponted with a lot of gamesmanship going on in Vintage Sniper, what do they mean? And how solid is the Unertl scope mount on the 03?

Do yall know if the Germans ever tried the FG42 in a sniper/DMR role since the G43 didnt work out?

@Frank Green any idea where the original Armalite AR10 barrels came from and how they were made?

 

[Random Guy]

The best optic for an K98 is probably a 6x Zeiss or something similar, but I think the CMP competitions limits it to 4x power. The problem with many of those scopes is a lack of windage knobs for quick adjustments in the wind. The high cheek weld is pretty bad on them too.

I don't know what "gamesmanship" issues are being discussed re the CMP vintage sniper match, so I can't comment, other than to say the 1903 w/ 8x scope typically dominates the competition. Its been that way since the cheap Leatherwood USMC replica 8x scope came out for $500 back in 2011 or 2012. Perhaps some don't like that, but an 8x optic at 600 yards allows much more precision aiming capability than a 2.5x, 3x or 4x optic at that same 600 yards.

That said, two of the best shooters who have won several times recently competed with an M1C with 4X scope and shot a team score of 390-12x - which is phenomenal. So shooting skill of course matters a lot, and this article is pretty inspiring to me...and shows that a 4x scope can also be effective.

Think an M1 Cannot Shoot Well in the VSTM? - Civilian Marksmanship Program

By Andrew Hall From the Garand Collector’s Association Journal We are a little embarrassed to admit that the exploits of two shooters at the 2018 D-Day Matches at the CMP ‘s Talladega Marksmanship Park were not noticed until recently. In the Vintage Sniper Team Match, only three teams fired...

thecmp.org

The 1903 with 8X scopes should use the Steve Earle scope blocks as they are properly hardened and better made than the Chinese parts that come with the Leatherwood repo 8x scopes. The screws in the mount should be replaced with properly hardened screws, but the optic itself is fine. I've not had any issues with my set-up, which was built in 2012 and has been used ever since (but not this year thanks to the pandemic).

The FG42 was only issued to highly trained German paratroopers. The downsides (other than its 13 to 14 lb loaded weight with optic) was the fact that it was crazy complex and the German High Command was not crazy enough to entertain its widespread use - outside of their highly skilled paratroopers Why? Well, if I may quote what the US Aberdeen Proving Ground report from 1944 says about the FG42 that they evaluated:

Quote:

"The FG42 has been produced with apparently little thought as to the difficulty and cost involved in manufacture. The cost of a weapon of this kind manufactured in the United States would be excessive."

Indeed, between 1943 and 1945 Germany was only able to make b/t 6,000 to 7,000 of these rifles. The U.S. was making more M1 Garands in one week(!) than the number of FG42s that the Germans were able to make over 3 years (that included the 2nd version of the FG42 - which was easier to produce but still way to exotic). Just the muzzle brake itself on a FG42 is a highly complex masterpiece of machining and engineering - but completely impractical for mass-production.

The German military knew the FG42 was too exotic, too heavy, too expensive, and too complex to mass produce and field as a select fire weapon for the common infantry man, so they focused their efforts on the revolutionary "Sturmgewehr 44" or StG44, which was a much simpler stamped metal design with a unique moderate power cartridge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

The concept of a DMR didn't exist in WWII, unless you consider the StG 44 'Assault Rifle' with a scope as a DMR, which came out in very late in the war.
I think the Germans considered 300 meters as the effective range of the StG44 rifle - and beyond that required a 4x scoped K98 sniper rifle.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

@Random Guy - does the CMP Unlimited Garand class get many competitors? Do they use a special match conditioned Garand specifically for that class or do most just use their regular JCG match rifle? The CMP offers services to do a full match conditioning job on Garands.. I wonder how good their work is compared to Don McCoy's..?

@__JR__ I meant to ask before.. the Atkinson method? Who is Atkinson? Also have you or Mr @Frank Green ever heard of Bliss Titus? Do you know how he made his barrels? @sandwarrior you may have seen/heard of Mr Titus? Used to make his own barrels and was also a smith, theres still several nice old Mausers out there from the 50's/60's when he was working..

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Also @sandwarrior as far as M16 vs 1903, Id say off the rack weapons with ball ammo they'd be near equal, but heres what @kraigWY posted not too long ago..
"
The 1903s are without a doubt the most accurate vintage surplus rifles out there.

Yes they still shoot them at Perry as well as other CMP GSM matches. The CMP puts the '03s in their own category separating them from other vintage rifles for that reason. In CMP matches they give Gold, Silver, and Bronze badges when certain scores are fired. The cut off for those scores are higher for the '03s then the Garand or "Other" surplus military rifles (the "M" in GSM).

Mind you, these are "as issued" rifles. Last Saturday I fired my M1903A3 in a Springfield match. Its totally USGI, barrel, stock, etc. Using the Greek ball M-2 it was easy to clean the 200 yard prone slow fire target.

Granted GSM matches are fired at 200 yards, but they also dominate the Vintage Sniper Matches fired at 300 and 600 yards.

I will go out on a limb and say the as-issued 100 year old Springfield Rifles will out shoot any of the now issued. arms room guns using ball ammo out there today.

No they would out shoot a supper match M1A or White Oak AR service rifle.........but stock M14s, M16s, M4s or any body out there's service rifle.

I'm talking accuracy, not combat. Though in CMP matches I can load and fire 10 rounds with stripper clips faster then I can shoot 10 round out of my Garand, (accurately) it wouldn't be my choice as a combat rifle.

My only combat experience is in the Jungles of SE Asia, I doubt it would have competed with my M16a1 in those conditions. But it is more accurate by a long shot.

Personally if it was me, I'd dust off your 'A1 and start shooting CMP matches with your 'A1, see for your self, it'll out shoot any other vintage surplus rifle out there.

Warning though, you're gonna get hooked, you'll end up with another action and end up building a M1903A4 for the Vintage Sniper Matches."
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/springfield-1903-a1-accuracy-potential.225468/

I respect your opinion greatly sir, same with @kraigWY.. But I have a Colt 6920, granted its a 16" barrel rifle, but I just dont see it greatly outperforming a 03 if both are using FMJ

 

[sandwarrior]

No idea who Titus is. As of the last time I ckecked, no variant of the M16 is allowed in vintage CMP contests.

Also, while the M16 may be more accurate wirhin it’s range, the older M16 rifle/bullet combo do not remain stable as far out as the 1903 and it’s bullet combination. IMO, they should have to fire M1906, Not M1 or M72 as those were not combat issue ammunition. But, they get to. While other rifle/round combinations are restricted to what was issued in combat.

That said, M16A2 and newer keep 62’s stable to 880 yds. And. Mk 262 stable to well past 1k. Again though, M16A2 and subsequent variants won’t even begin to qualify for CMP “Vintage” for 15 more years.

One thing you might look at is International Competition. Here, the 1903 is dominant beause the rules favor it. In International Competition it hasn’t won anything since the 1920’s, maybe 1930’s. It has never set one single record and it hasn’t won amything in the Olympics... ever. Something to consider.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

No idea who Titus is. As of the last time I ckecked, no variant of the M16 is allowed in vintage CMP contests.

Also, while the M16 may be more accurate wirhin it’s range, the older M16 rifle/bullet combo do not remain stable as far out as the 1903 and it’s bullet combination. IMO, they should have to fire M1906, Not M1 or M72 as those were not combat issue ammunition. But, they get to. While other rifle/round combinations are restricted to what was issued in combat.

That said, M16A2 and newer keep 62’s stable to 880 yds. And. Mk 262 stable to well past 1k. Again though, M16A2 and subsequent variants won’t even begin to qualify for CMP “Vintage” for 15 more years.

One thing you might look at is International Competition. Here, the 1903 is dominant beause the rules favor it. In International Competition it hasn’t won anything since the 1920’s, maybe 1930’s. It has never set one single record and it hasn’t won amything in the Olympics... ever. Something to consider.

Wasn't talking about the AR in CMP competition, neither was @kraigWY if my reading comprehension is up to snuff- was simply talking about 1903 w/ ball ammo vs M16 w/ ball ammo. Idk if you meant me or the sources I quoted.. but if you meant Im the one twisting facts to suit my desires and lost in nostalgia.. then @kraigWY is too even moreso apparently(and I dare say he has easily just as much, or more years/experience as you + me combined).. I was simply going off the sources I posted and a lil gut instinct to go along with my own experience shooting my 6920 with M193 + a 3x optic. I cant find ANY accuracy requirements for M16's, and the only standards I see for the 1903 is 3 MOA. And Ive looked and looked researching this exact subject for goddang ever LOL!
Wonder where @cplnorton is..? Id love to see if he could clear this up re: M1903 accuracy acceptance. @sandwarrior do you recall where you saw 6 MOA? Maybe thats when they considered the barrel shot out? Because I cant find it now, but to be clear thats what I saw for the M16, that they considered the barrel needing replacement once it hits 6 MOA...should've specified that before.

Perhaps @Molon could chime in, whats the accuracy acceptance standard for M193, and M855 respectively? Because whatever they are, then the M16 acceptance standard is at least that, if not even a bit worse..
ETA: the only 5.56 ammo accuracy criteria I can find is measured by the average mean radius method unfortunately. Not really a way to convert that to MOA afaik...

IMO with high quality FMJ ball ammo for each in decent-good condition rifles, Id have to imagine both would average roughly ~2 - 3 MOA in lots of 100 1903's and 100 M16's. With certain select rifles with a good shooter doing quite a bit better in some cases.

Far as Int'l competition, I never heard of a Int'l Vintage rifle competition? If you mean stuff like 300M CISM, of course no one uses a '03. Most are using Bleikers(or Grunig & Elmigers, Keppelers, Hammerli's, etc) like we were drooling over in my AI Coopermatch thread. Americans have never had a big presence in those type comps, at least not for a long long time. Notice how barely any Americans compete in 300M, I wouldnt even know where to find a 300M competition here. AFAIK literally about the only time 300M shooting is competed in w/in America is when the AMU shooters get together and see who is going to go represent us overseas via a shoot-off.

Regardless, even back then, of course you'd be a fool to use a standard mil spec full stock 1903. BTW the CMP Vintage Sniper rules favor the Unertl 8x, yes. But in the standard 200yd matches, the 1903 is in a seperate class with STRICTER scoring criteria than the others. And in those matches, someone can correct me if Im wrong, but you're required to use ball ammo. As @kraigWY said, its in a seperate class not so it can win, but so that other vintage rifles have a chance to win something. And also as I said, I believe the Canadians bested us in the 1913(?) Palma match, with their Ross rifles.. that was according to McBride in "A Rifleman Went to War". But thats Palma, and wind calling skill completely trumps any small difference in accuracy.

 

[sandwarrior]

Wasn't talking about the AR in CMP competition, neither was @kraigWY if my reading comprehension is up to snuff- was simply talking about 1903 w/ ball ammo vs M16 w/ ball ammo. Idk if you meant me or the sources I quoted.. but if you meant Im the one twisting facts to suit my desires and lost in nostalgia.. then @kraigWY is too even moreso apparently(and I dare say he has easily just as much, or more years/experience as you + me combined).. I was simply going off the sources I posted and a lil gut instinct to go along with my own experience shooting my 6920 with M193 + a 3x optic. I cant find ANY accuracy requirements for M16's, and the only standards I see for the 1903 is 3 MOA. And Ive looked and looked researching this exact subject for goddang ever LOL!
Wonder where @cplnorton is..? Id love to see if he could clear this up re: M1903 accuracy acceptance. @sandwarrior do you recall where you saw 6 MOA? Maybe thats when they considered the barrel shot out? Because I cant find it now, but to be clear thats what I saw for the M16, that they considered the barrel needing replacement once it hits 6 MOA...should've specified that before.

Perhaps @Molon could chime in, whats the accuracy acceptance standard for M193, and M855 respectively? Because whatever they are, then the M16 acceptance standard is at least that, if not even a bit worse..
ETA: the only 5.56 ammo accuracy criteria I can find is measured by the average mean radius method unfortunately. Not really a way to convert that to MOA afaik...

IMO with high quality FMJ ball ammo for each in decent-good condition rifles, Id have to imagine both would average roughly ~2 - 3 MOA in lots of 100 1903's and 100 M16's. With certain select rifles with a good shooter doing quite a bit better in some cases.

Far as Int'l competition, I never heard of a Int'l Vintage rifle competition? If you mean stuff like 300M CISM, of course no one uses a '03. Most are using Bleikers(or Grunig & Elmigers, Keppelers, Hammerli's, etc) like we were drooling over in my AI Coopermatch thread. Americans have never had a big presence in those type comps, at least not for a long long time. Notice how barely any Americans compete in 300M, I wouldnt even know where to find a 300M competition here. AFAIK literally about the only time 300M shooting is competed in w/in America is when the AMU shooters get together and see who is going to go represent us overseas via a shoot-off.

Regardless, even back then, of course you'd be a fool to use a standard mil spec full stock 1903. BTW the CMP Vintage Sniper rules favor the Unertl 8x, yes. But in the standard 200yd matches, the 1903 is in a seperate class with STRICTER scoring criteria than the others. And in those matches, someone can correct me if Im wrong, but you're required to use ball ammo. As @kraigWY said, its in a seperate class not so it can win, but so that other vintage rifles have a chance to win something. And also as I said, I believe the Canadians bested us in the 1913(?) Palma match, with their Ross rifles.. that was according to McBride in "A Rifleman Went to War". But thats Palma, and wind calling skill completely trumps any small difference in accuracy.

Coyote,

It seems to me that if we were talking, you don't seem to have a hearing problem, you seem to have a listening problem.

Everytime somebody refutes your position on the 1903, you come back with questions that seem to want to steer us in the direction that the 1903 is the best. And, we should all jump on your side. If it were the best, we'd still be using it in MODERN competitions today, just like the Swiss use their K-31. All variants of service rifle today are being won by M16's here in the U.S. The 1903 IS allowed in those competitions. But, it is not winning there. It's so "not winning", it isn't even being entered anymore.

The 1903 is a fine rifle. Get one and shoot it if you like. The best? No, I wouldn't say so. As to how the barrels were made, we answered that on the first page. And yeah, there is alwasy something new to learn abour that not just historically cool, it's cool. Read more of the posts from the guys who've done all the research and use them on a regular basis. But, stop asking the same question over and over and then pointing out we don't know what we're saying because you have an opinion otherwise. Or, someone else does.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Coyote,

It seems to me that if we were talking, you don't seem to have a hearing problem, you seem to have a listening problem.

Everytime somebody refutes your position on the 1903, you come back with questions that seem to want to steer us in the direction that the 1903 is the best. And, we should all jump on your side. If it were the best, we'd still be using it in MODERN competitions today, just like the Swiss use their K-31. All variants of service rifle today are being won by M16's here in the U.S. The 1903 IS allowed in those competitions. But, it is not winning there. It's so "not winning", it isn't even being entered anymore.

The 1903 is a fine rifle. Get one and shoot it if you like. The best? No, I wouldn't say so. As to how the barrels were made, we answered that on the first page. And yeah, there is alwasy something new to learn abour that not just historically cool, it's cool. Read more of the posts from the guys who've done all the research and use them on a regular basis. But, stop asking the same question over and over and then pointing out we don't know what we're saying because you have an opinion otherwise. Or, someone else does.

I aint here to argue, and Im very sorry if Ive ruffled your feathers. Ive always enjoyed corresponding with you and everyone else here. As I said, Im here to learn. You said the 03 had an acceptance criteria of 6 MOA, which made me doubt the 3 MOA that I found, and think there was some other documentation out there that could be found on the matter. Please, do point out where I said the 03 was the best or most accurate even in its own day, much less today.
Out of the respect I still have for you, Ill continue to chalk up your comments on me having a problem or twisting facts or whatever, to you having a bad day or very possibly me coming across in a manner I didnt intend. But if it just makes you feel better, go to town man LOL dont worry my skins quite thick! "Somebody refutes your position.." "...steer us..." "We all..." I dont see anyone wanting to refute anything besides you? As I said tho I apologize if my questions offended you, I certainly didnt intend that! I was simply trying to find more documentation and have pretty much exhausted google. Looks like Ive exhausted snipershide as well tho, oh well.

You keep bringing up service rifle, as I said NRA service rifle is a totally different thing. I dont know of any service rifle match anywhere which requires a standard rack grade M16/AR15(non free floated, gov't contour barrel, ball ammo, etc). Even in CMP Modern Military, you're allowed a float tube, etc etc. And AFAIK, someone can correct me if Im wrong here, but the 03 is not allowed in NRA service rifle. I dont see a section for it anywhere in the rule book at least. Not that anyone would use it if it were allowed. For what its worth tho, a gentleman did make the President's 100 with a M1A in service rifle just a few years back. And I certainly wouldn't say a 1903 with all the same mods as a M1A Supermatch, is less accurate than that Supermatch..

But thats beside the point, once again(I believe this is the 3rd time now?), Ill point out, just in the last post you quoted, I said the Ross bested our 03 on our own home soil, when the rifles were brand new and no excuses can be made whatsoever. Mcbride himself said the rifle was more accurate. But I dont think, and wont say, that you have a reading problem. I'd chalk it up to me not getting my thoughts across effectively. I dont think we are disagreeing as much as you seem to want us to, or think us to be. I'll try to make my thoughts more clear from now on as thats the only thing I can do I suppose. Again, I dont think the 03 was the best or most accurate in its day or today. Its a skinny barrel, unbedded, full stock service rifle.. of course it aint!

Perhaps you'll finally make your way down south for the precision rifle expo in Sept and allow me to buy us a round as I said I would before. I hope you're having a great day in this crazy quarantine, and dont hesitate to ask for TP if ya need some, we got plenty down here

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

The best optic for an K98 is probably a 6x Zeiss or something similar, but I think the CMP competitions limits it to 4x power. The problem with many of those scopes is a lack of windage knobs for quick adjustments in the wind. The high cheek weld is pretty bad on them too.

I don't know what "gamesmanship" issues are being discussed re the CMP vintage sniper match, so I can't comment, other than to say the 1903 w/ 8x scope typically dominates the competition. Its been that way since the cheap Leatherwood USMC replica 8x scope came out for $500 back in 2011 or 2012. Perhaps some don't like that, but an 8x optic at 600 yards allows much more precision aiming capability than a 2.5x, 3x or 4x optic at that same 600 yards.

That said, two of the best shooters who have won several times recently competed with an M1C with 4X scope and shot a team score of 390-12x - which is phenomenal. So shooting skill of course matters a lot, and this article is pretty inspiring to me...and shows that a 4x scope can also be effective.

Think an M1 Cannot Shoot Well in the VSTM? - Civilian Marksmanship Program

By Andrew Hall From the Garand Collector’s Association Journal We are a little embarrassed to admit that the exploits of two shooters at the 2018 D-Day Matches at the CMP ‘s Talladega Marksmanship Park were not noticed until recently. In the Vintage Sniper Team Match, only three teams fired...

thecmp.org

The 1903 with 8X scopes should use the Steve Earle scope blocks as they are properly hardened and better made than the Chinese parts that come with the Leatherwood repo 8x scopes. The screws in the mount should be replaced with properly hardened screws, but the optic itself is fine. I've not had any issues with my set-up, which was built in 2012 and has been used ever since (but not this year thanks to the pandemic).

The FG42 was only issued to highly trained German paratroopers. The downsides (other than its 13 to 14 lb loaded weight with optic) was the fact that it was crazy complex and the German High Command was not crazy enough to entertain its widespread use - outside of their highly skilled paratroopers Why? Well, if I may quote what the US Aberdeen Proving Ground report from 1944 says about the FG42 that they evaluated:

Quote:

"The FG42 has been produced with apparently little thought as to the difficulty and cost involved in manufacture. The cost of a weapon of this kind manufactured in the United States would be excessive."

Indeed, between 1943 and 1945 Germany was only able to make b/t 6,000 to 7,000 of these rifles. The U.S. was making more M1 Garands in one week(!) than the number of FG42s that the Germans were able to make over 3 years (that included the 2nd version of the FG42 - which was easier to produce but still way to exotic). Just the muzzle brake itself on a FG42 is a highly complex masterpiece of machining and engineering - but completely impractical for mass-production.

The German military knew the FG42 was too exotic, too heavy, too expensive, and too complex to mass produce and field as a select fire weapon for the common infantry man, so they focused their efforts on the revolutionary "Sturmgewehr 44" or StG44, which was a much simpler stamped metal design with a unique moderate power cartridge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

The concept of a DMR didn't exist in WWII, unless you consider the StG 44 'Assault Rifle' with a scope as a DMR, which came out in very late in the war.
I think the Germans considered 300 meters as the effective range of the StG44 rifle - and beyond that required a 4x scoped K98 sniper rifle.

Do you know what would wear out first on the FG42? Apparently they only had a lifespan of like 3500 rds?
Also at what point did Germany move to hammer forging? And I wonder how much it had to do with them being largely forbidden most weapons by the Versailles Treaty, combined with the economic depression, causing them to sell much if not most of the machines needed to make weapons that they previously had? Obviously the MG42 ate barrels, but as I said previously S&L bought some German machines after WW1 and Im sure they weren't the only one.. I imagine Germany had a very hard time getting those machines back unless they were in German occupied territory.

 

[sandwarrior]

I aint here to argue, and Im very sorry if Ive ruffled your feathers. Ive always enjoyed corresponding with you and everyone else here. As I said, Im here to learn. You said the 03 had an acceptance criteria of 6 MOA, which made me doubt the 3 MOA that I found, and think there was some other documentation out there that could be found on the matter. Please, do point out where I said the 03 was the best or most accurate even in its own day, much less today.
Out of the respect I still have for you, Ill continue to chalk up your comments on me having a problem or twisting facts or whatever, to you having a bad day or very possibly me coming across in a manner I didnt intend. But if it just makes you feel better, go to town man LOL dont worry my skins quite thick! "Somebody refutes your position.." "...steer us..." "We all..." I dont see anyone wanting to refute anything besides you? As I said tho I apologize if my questions offended you, I certainly didnt intend that! I was simply trying to find more documentation and have pretty much exhausted google. Looks like Ive exhausted snipershide as well tho, oh well.

You keep bringing up service rifle, as I said NRA service rifle is a totally different thing. I dont know of any service rifle match anywhere which requires a standard rack grade M16/AR15(non free floated, gov't contour barrel, ball ammo, etc). Even in CMP Modern Military, you're allowed a float tube, etc etc. And AFAIK, someone can correct me if Im wrong here, but the 03 is not allowed in NRA service rifle. I dont see a section for it anywhere in the rule book at least. Not that anyone would use it if it were allowed. For what its worth tho, a gentleman did make the President's 100 with a M1A in service rifle just a few years back. And I certainly wouldn't say a 1903 with all the same mods as a M1A Supermatch, is less accurate than that Supermatch..

But thats beside the point, once again(I believe this is the 3rd time now?), Ill point out, just in the last post you quoted, I said the Ross bested our 03 on our own home soil, when the rifles were brand new and no excuses can be made whatsoever. Mcbride himself said the rifle was more accurate. But I dont think, and wont say, that you have a reading problem. I'd chalk it up to me not getting my thoughts across effectively. I dont think we are disagreeing as much as you seem to want us to, or think us to be. I'll try to make my thoughts more clear from now on as thats the only thing I can do I suppose. Again, I dont think the 03 was the best or most accurate in its day or today. Its a skinny barrel, unbedded, full stock service rifle.. of course it aint!

Perhaps you'll finally make your way down south for the precision rifle expo in Sept and allow me to buy us a round as I said I would before. I hope you're having a great day in this crazy quarantine, and dont hesitate to ask for TP if ya need some, we got plenty down here

I think you need to invest in some of these rifles, shoot some competition, and form your own opinion.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

I intend to do just that as soon as I can get some breathing room out from under my student loans.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

I know it's still being done but who is all doing it and and don't know if some places that use to do it stopped doing it etc...I couldn't tell ya.

Again if you straighten a barrel in my opinion your inducing stress back or more stress into the barrel.

@Frank Green Ive seen vids of guys making homemade ECM rifled barrels, and also Ritter & Stark uses this method to rifle their barrels. Do you think this method is as consistent as cut rifling? And would you say theres any future in it as far as custom barrels? @__JR__

 

[__JR__]

@Frank Green Ive seen vids of guys making homemade ECM rifled barrels, and also Ritter & Stark uses this method to rifle their barrels. Do you think this method is as consistent as cut rifling? And would you say theres any future in it as far as custom barrels? @__JR__

Ha, for long sticks they're not even in my rear view mirror.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Ha, for long sticks they're not even in my rear view mirror.

Have you ever seen any German or any Euro cut rifling machines? If so, would you say they're as good as the Pratt & Whitneys?

 

[Bolo]

On another side note, anybody got any idea how the gov't chose which companies would get contracts for a given rifle? Ie Winchester, Springfield, IHC, H&R, etc for M1's...

I know I'm weighing in a bit late on this...
A good bit of it had to do with the ability to produce the numbers the Govt wanted in the timeframe specified. Garands were mostly SA, but Winchester got picked to cover down on the additional needs once war was imminent. IHC and H&R only produced Korean War-era M1s along with SA.

Funny wrinkle, tho... had the M1941 Johnson won out over the early (gas-trap) Garand, it was still going to be produced by SA- US Army Ordnance noted Johnson didn't have a factory and was trying to contract with all manner of manufacturers with no weapons experience.

I hear about the Danish VAR's and 60's SA barrels being stand-outs for Garand barrels, are WRA Garands considered any better or worse than others?

WRA Garands really don't shoot any better or worse... Winchester only made Garands in WWII, so they need to be compared to WWII SA. Since the majority of the M1s were refurbed after WWII at SA (with 'cut' op-rods and different gas plugs), it's pretty hard to find a "WWII-correct" WRA. If you do find one, in good condition, they fetch a pretty hefty price.

 

[pmclaine]

Gus Fisher commented that for match use the USMC armorers of his era preferred to avoid Winchester.

Its pretty well accepted Winchester left more machining marks and was less refined in their Garand production.

Unlike SA they never "revised" the contract design.

The prints and tooling at the start of the war were the same prints and tooling when their contract ended.

Check out the milling at the very rear of the Win op rod track - square cut - like early SA. SA changed to a round finish at some point.

So SA modified the design through the war not so much Winchester.

Winchester also had to make money to operate. SA only had to request more taxes.

 

[Random Guy]

So SA modified the design through the war not so much Winchester.

Winchester also had to make money to operate. SA only had to request more taxes.

It should be noted that Winchester was/is a private sector company, and that Springfield Armory was not. - it was the federal arsenal. There were revisions to the WRA M1 in WWII, but only the essential items were changed. Why? Each design change that resulted in a change in tooling or production required the gov't to produce a 'contract modification' or 'contract-mod' for short. Each time you introduce a contract-mod to a vendor that also automatically opens the door to price negotiations. I think the drawings that started the WRA contract were likely dated from 1940, which was a early M1 design.

The first major design change was moving from the early "no-trap" buttstock with the solid buttplate to the later style "trap-door" buttstock that allowed storage for the M1 cleaning kit. This was deemed essential (and part of soldier training re M1 Garand maintenance during WWII) - and thus a contract modification was created that changed the design of the stock, and allowed Winchester to increase the unit price of each M1 thereafter to reflect that change in design from the original 1940-dated prints, and thus a change in the manufacturing process. Another essential item was moving from the 'flush-nut' rear sight (that was prone to loosening and becoming lost - rendering the sight nonadjustable) to the later 'lock-bar' rear sight. (Attached are pics of very early SA M1 in the gas trap era). Again, this required a contract mod and Winchester requested a slightly higher price to implement this change, etc. There were a few more, but WRA resisted them unless they could get more money for these design changes. These contract mods also introduced delays in the process - and that's why WRA M1s were updated later in the war (when compared to SA M1s).

Meanwhile at Springfield Armory, which was the official gov't arsenal, the engineers were constantly updating the drawings and once approved by internal mgmt, they were simply put into production without any contract negotiations or pricing negotiations. It was an order, that simple. That is why the SA M1s changed so much during WWII production. I think the Ordnance Dept got tired of trying to get WRA to make all these small changes as it resulted in contract mods, price negotiations and delays, etc. So only the essential changes were done by WRA during WWII - as again, it required contract-mods. (Using the flawed 'request more tax' analogy, it was actually WRA that kept increasing the prices/thereby indirectly 'requesting more taxes' during WWII for the M1 rifle, not SA, which implemented dozens of tooling changes under the Armory's existing operating budget during the WWII era. I suspect wage controls were likely in place during that era too). The best book on this subject is Bruce Canfield's huge book, The M1 Garand (2013). https://estore.thecmp.org/Catalog/Item/786

BTW, the contract-mod process still occurs today. Vendors probably like contract modifications in many cases for complex projects - b/c it opens the door to price negotiations and price increases, and once they are already providing goods and services to the fed gov't and have a contract in place, they sort of have the upper hand in negotiations. That's why things like the unit price of an F-35 fighter has dramatically escalated over the past decade - changing technical requirements = lots of contract mods = lots of incrementally higher prices and so on and so forth..

On another side note, anybody got any idea how the gov't chose which companies would get contracts for a given rifle? Ie Winchester, Springfield, IHC, H&R, etc for M1's..

Its an open bidding process based on a vendor's 1. technical approach/technical capability, 2. past performance and 3. workforce/key personnel/project mgmt structure, etc. 4th is typically cost, but that depends on the risk of the contract. (making paper clips is low-risk, making advanced stealth fighters is high-risk). As for the curious case of the IHC M1 Garand contract, it was reportedly somewhat based on its geographic location. During the Cold War and the existential threat of nuclear war, it was felt that having all production of your main battle rifle in the northeast region (MA = SA, HRA and CT = WRA) was too much risk, but IHC was located in the mid-west in Indiana, so it was felt that area might not be a prime target in the event of a war with the Soviet Union, so IHC won a contract to make M1 Garands. That is certainly not the only factor, but it was reportedly one of the factors.

 

[sandwarrior]

It should be noted that Winchester was/is a private sector company, and that Springfield Armory was not. - it was the federal arsenal. There were revisions to the WRA M1 in WWII, but only the essential items were changed. Why? Each design change that resulted in a change in tooling or production required the gov't to produce a 'contract modification' or 'contract-mod' for short. Each time you introduce a contract-mod to a vendor that also automatically opens the door to price negotiations. I think the drawings that started the WRA contract were likely dated from 1940, which was a early M1 design.

The first major design change was moving from the early "no-trap" buttstock with the solid buttplate to the later style "trap-door" buttstock that allowed storage for the M1 cleaning kit. This was deemed essential (and part of soldier training re M1 Garand maintenance during WWII) - and thus a contract modification was created that changed the design of the stock, and allowed Winchester to increase the unit price of each M1 thereafter to reflect that change in design from the original 1940-dated prints, and thus a change in the manufacturing process. Another essential item was moving from the 'flush-nut' rear sight (that was prone to loosening and becoming lost - rendering the sight nonadjustable) to the later 'lock-bar' rear sight. (Attached are pics of very early SA M1 in the gas trap era). Again, this required a contract mod and Winchester requested a slightly higher price to implement this change, etc. There were a few more, but WRA resisted them unless they could get more money for these design changes. These contract mods also introduced delays in the process - and that's why WRA M1s were updated later in the war (when compared to SA M1s).

Meanwhile at Springfield Armory, which was the official gov't arsenal, the engineers were constantly updating the drawings and once approved by internal mgmt, they were simply put into production without any contract negotiations and pricing negotiations. It was an order, that simple. That is why the SA M1s changed so much during WWII production. I think the Ordnance Dept got tired of trying to get WRA to make all these small changes as it resulted in contract mods, price negotiations and delays, etc. So only the essential changes were done by WRA during WWII - as again, it required contract-mods. (Using the flawed 'request more tax' analogy, it was actually WRA that kept increasing the prices/thereby indirectly 'requesting more taxes' during WWII for the M1 rifle, not SA, which implemented dozens of tooling changes under the Armory's existing operating budget during the WWII era. I suspect wage controls were likely in place during that era too). The best book on this subject is Bruce Canfield's huge book, The M1 Garand (2013). https://estore.thecmp.org/Catalog/Item/786

BTW, the contract-mod process still occurs today. Vendors probably like contract modifications in many cases for complex projects - b/c it opens the door to price negotiations and price increases, and once they are already providing goods and services to the fed gov't and have a contract in place, they sort of have the upper hand in negotiations. That's why things like the unit price of an F-35 fighter has dramatically escalated over the past decade - changing technical requirements = lots of contract mods = lots of incrementally higher prices and so on and so forth..



Its an open bidding process based on a vendor's 1. technical approach/technical capability, 2. past performance and 3. workforce/key personnel/project mgmt structure, etc. 4th is typically cost, but that depends on the risk of the contract. (making paper clips is low-risk, making advanced stealth fighters is high-risk). As for the curious case of the IHC M1 Garand contract, it was reportedly somewhat based on its geographic location. During the Cold War and the existential threat of nuclear war, it was felt that having all production of your main battle rifle in the northeast region (MA = SA, HRA and CT = WRA) was too much risk, but IHC was located in the mid-west in Indiana, so it was felt that area might not be a prime target in the event of a war with the Soviet Union, so IHC won a contract to make M1 Garands. That is certainly not the only factor, but it was reportedly one of the factors.

No doubt Vendors like changes. When I worked construction on NAS Fallon, the contractors were happy to get bids for next to no money. By the time their proposal went through, there were already updates needing to be made. Those contract mods were where they made their money. One prime example was the computer room. Initially, it was supposed to be concrete stub walls with grounds and power plumbed in. The company got the bid and proposed the use of new steel stands and computer flooring with the grounds and power in a flat surface. That actually shaved money OFF the total. But, it literally doubled what the company made for that section of the contract.

And yeah, when the miltiary starts making little changes, they cost money on the vendors side. That's why they have to negotiate, and not just "Oh yeah, we can do that."

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Gus Fisher commented that for match use the USMC armorers of his era preferred to avoid Winchester.

Its pretty well accepted Winchester left more machining marks and was less refined in their Garand production.

Unlike SA they never "revised" the contract design.

The prints and tooling at the start of the war were the same prints and tooling when their contract ended.

Check out the milling at the very rear of the Win op rod track - square cut - like early SA. SA changed to a round finish at some point.

So SA modified the design through the war not so much Winchester.

Winchester also had to make money to operate. SA only had to request more taxes.

That jives with what Ive heard/read as well... WRA's not being regarded as highly..

 

[RTH1800]

I know it's still being done but who is all doing it and and don't know if some places that use to do it stopped doing it etc...I couldn't tell ya.

Again if you straighten a barrel in my opinion your inducing stress back or more stress into the barrel.

Frank,
I know you are careful to not step on any toes but you know for a fact that straightening barrels set up stresses. It’s not just an opinion.

 

[Frank Green]

Frank,
I know you are careful to not step on any toes but you know for a fact that straightening barrels set up stresses. It’s not just an opinion.

Yes. That's why we won't straighten a barrel. If the barrel bows (our terminology) during the contouring process that's a pretty clear sign it has stress in the blank. The blank will get scrapped at that point. It never makes it to reaming/rifling etc...and the customer never sees it. it doesn't happen a lot.

I'm trying to think of a better way to explain it so bear with me.

Let's assume that all of the other variables that can come into play on a rifle (lets just talk bolt action rifles) are out of the equation. As you shoot the gun and the barrel heats up and you notice the shots walk/string on the target. Don't adjust the sights. Let the gun cool and then resume shooting. If it repeats this is what I call a barrel that has residual stress in the blank. Straightened or not. If you straighten the barrel your inducing more stress into the barrel blank. The steel is going to have a memory. As it heats up it will wander on you and when it cools because it has a memory it goes back to where it started.

Also I will say this.....we've worked with material that during turning as one example we noticed a lot of them bowing (call it bending). We get a hold of the steel mill supplier etc...and bring up the issues we are seeing. Then come to find out (they acknowledged that they skipped a stress relieving operation after straighten the bars during the manufacturing process. Sent the whole lot back. Also one mill that we use to buy our material from (back during when OBAMA was our President) skipped a heat treating/stress relieving process. The steel drilled fine, turned fine, reamed fine etc...all the way up to rifling. Was just killing our rifling tools. We only shipped 14 barrels out of that lot of material. Went to one customer and told him to let me know how they shot etc...and they all shot fine. No issues etc...but we literally wrecked one rifling tool per barrel. Had the senior sales guy from the mill and the mills metallurgist come to the shop for a meeting. They flat out told us they skipped a process. Why...because Obama forgave the debt to the auto industry (GM and Chrysler) and the mill was owed millions of $. They had to cut the work force overnight and not to mention cut other corners. The mill was suppose to work with us on future shipments of steel at a reduced cost to offset the cost we lost in labor. We returned the whole lot of steel. Everything from the raw uncut bars, to cut bars to drilled blanks, contoured blanks, reamed blanks etc...we had lost $55k in labor in one month because of it! Don't even go there and ask me how much help we got back from the mill. You will make me mad! The new sales guy that took over told me (yes I have copies of the email!!!) and was told as far as they are concerned they are the only game in town and we have to buy from them and they shouldn't have taken the material back etc...ok if that's your attitude I will find someone else to work with. That's a true story!

From what I know and have learned that straightening a solid bar of steel effects the outer layers more than the inner layers of the steel. If this is true....now imagine taking a barrel that has already been rifled etc...and straighten the barrel. With the hole in the barrel/piece of steel now....is the effect greater on the barrel? I'll say yes. All of the support is gone.

So you all know because of the gov't bail out of GM and Chrysler we are all co owners of these two places right? So you can thank the previous President for that! A lot of people lost jobs because of that and most don't remember or even know of this happening.

That's why we work directly with the mills per say and not warehouses. I need to know what we are getting etc...and if we have a problem that I make a phone call to one person and the buck doesn't get passed from this person to that person.

Later, Frank

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Yes. That's why we won't straighten a barrel. If the barrel bows (our terminology) during the contouring process that's a pretty clear sign it has stress in the blank. The blank will get scrapped at that point. It never makes it to reaming/rifling etc...and the customer never sees it. it doesn't happen a lot.

I'm trying to think of a better way to explain it so bear with me.

Let's assume that all of the other variables that can come into play on a rifle (lets just talk bolt action rifles) are out of the equation. As you shoot the gun and the barrel heats up and you notice the shots walk/string on the target. Don't adjust the sights. Let the gun cool and then resume shooting. If it repeats this is what I call a barrel that has residual stress in the blank. Straightened or not. If you straighten the barrel your inducing more stress into the barrel blank. The steel is going to have a memory. As it heats up it will wander on you and when it cools because it has a memory it goes back to where it started.

Also I will say this.....we've worked with material that during turning as one example we noticed a lot of them bowing (call it bending). We get a hold of the steel mill supplier etc...and bring up the issues we are seeing. Then come to find out (they acknowledged that they skipped a stress relieving operation after straighten the bars during the manufacturing process. Sent the whole lot back. Also one mill that we use to buy our material from (back during when OBAMA was our President) skipped a heat treating/stress relieving process. The steel drilled fine, turned fine, reamed fine etc...all the way up to rifling. Was just killing our rifling tools. We only shipped 14 barrels out of that lot of material. Went to one customer and told him to let me know how they shot etc...and they all shot fine. No issues etc...but we literally wrecked one rifling tool per barrel. Had the senior sales guy from the mill and the mills metallurgist come to the shop for a meeting. They flat out told us they skipped a process. Why...because Obama forgave the debt to the auto industry (GM and Chrysler) and the mill was owed millions of $. They had to cut the work force overnight and not to mention cut other corners. The mill was suppose to work with us on future shipments of steel at a reduced cost to offset the cost we lost in labor. We returned the whole lot of steel. Everything from the raw uncut bars, to cut bars to drilled blanks, contoured blanks, reamed blanks etc...we had lost $55k in labor in one month because of it! Don't even go there and ask me how much help we got back from the mill. You will make me mad! The new sales guy that took over told me (yes I have copies of the email!!!) and was told as far as they are concerned they are the only game in town and we have to buy from them and they shouldn't have taken the material back etc...ok if that's your attitude I will find someone else to work with. That's a true story!

From what I know and have learned that straightening a solid bar of steel effects the outer layers more than the inner layers of the steel. If this is true....now imagine taking a barrel that has already been rifled etc...and straighten the barrel. With the hole in the barrel/piece of steel now....is the effect greater on the barrel? I'll say yes. All of the support is gone.

So you all know because of the gov't bail out of GM and Chrysler we are all co owners of these two places right? So you can thank the previous President for that! A lot of people lost jobs because of that and most don't remember or even know of this happening.

That's why we work directly with the mills per say and not warehouses. I need to know what we are getting etc...and if we have a problem that I make a phone call to one person and the buck doesn't get passed from this person to that person.

Later, Frank

@Frank Green have you ever heard of X-ray diffraction(I believe that’s the correct spelling)? Apparently Shilen claims you can “see” stresses in steel w/ X-ray diffraction?
Also, do you know if the Barrett ASR barrels are made in house or out sourced?
@__JR__ mentioned the Atkinson method? Where does that term come from/who was Atkinson?
Do you know anyone still doing broach cut rifle barrels? I know Badger used to but ain’t around anymore. They seemed to be hot with the black powder crowd. And would you say broach cut barrels were around before button rifling?
Somewhat of a random question, @sandwarrior do you know what if any relationship there is/was between Sig Sauer and JP Sauer? @pmclaine youre fairly close to Sig I believe? Is there any relationship between those 2?

 

[RTH1800]

Frank,

Thank you for the lengthy and insightful explanation. You guys are my go to choice of barrel makers for a reason. Now that you are doing CF barrels as well I will have no need to go anywhere else.

Have a great day!

RTH

 

[pmclaine]

Frank,

Thank you for the lengthy and insightful explanation. You guys are my go to choice of barrel makers for a reason. Now that you are doing CF barrels as well I will have no need to go anywhere else.

Have a great day!

RTH

 

[RTH1800]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Damn!

 

[Frank Green]

@Frank Green have you ever heard of X-ray diffraction(I believe that’s the correct spelling)? Apparently Shilen claims you can “see” stresses in steel w/ X-ray diffraction?
Also, do you know if the Barrett ASR barrels are made in house or out sourced?
@__JR__ mentioned the Atkinson method? Where does that term come from/who was Atkinson?
Do you know anyone still doing broach cut rifle barrels? I know Badger used to but ain’t around anymore. They seemed to be hot with the black powder crowd. And would you say broach cut barrels were around before button rifling?
Somewhat of a random question, @sandwarrior do you know what if any relationship there is/was between Sig Sauer and JP Sauer? @pmclaine youre fairly close to Sig I believe? Is there any relationship between those 2?

Don't know if Shilen has it or not. Not an expert on this but I thought the XRAYD only does molecular structure testing of the material. I don't think it does anything for stress type testing. I could be wrong so don't quote me on that.

As far as I know ASR for Barrett....I'm going to say outsourcing the barrel blanks.

Are you talking about Bill Atkinson? Last time I seen Bill was in the Ruger booth at Shot Show like 20 years ago. I don't think Bill is with us anymore.

Broach was around before button rifling. Button rifling came about around 1925 in Germany if I remember my time frame correctly. Broach cutting to my knowledge is being used by pistol barrel makers like Bar Sto Precision. Last I heard they where still broach cutting.

I don't know of any rifle barrel makers off hand pulling a broach anymore. Badger was the last that I knew of.

Krieger did play with broach cutting back in the mid 1980's but abandoned doing them because of the issues that he seen with the broaches and the process.

Later, Frank

 

[sandwarrior]

Don't know if Shilen has it or not. Not an expert on this but I thought the XRAYD only does molecular structure testing of the material. I don't think it does anything for stress type testing. I could be wrong so don't quote me on that.

As far as I know ASR for Barrett....I'm going to say outsourcing the barrel blanks.

Are you talking about Bill Atkinson? Last time I seen Bill was in the Ruger booth at Shot Show like 20 years ago. I don't think Bill is with us anymore.

Broach was around before button rifling. Button rifling came about around 1925 in Germany if I remember my time frame correctly. Broach cutting to my knowledge is being used by pistol barrel makers like Bar Sto Precision. Last I heard they where still broach cutting.

I don't know of any rifle barrel makers off hand pulling a broach anymore. Badger was the last that I knew of.

Krieger did play with broach cutting back in the mid 1980's but abandoned doing them because of the issues that he seen with the broaches and the process.

Later, Frank

Button rifling was around at least in the 1880's. The 6mm Lee Navy was button rifled (1895). It was an improvement of Lee-Metford rifling which went back into the 1880's. The caveat with this though is these were polygonal, not sharp shouldered riflings like what this thread, in general, is about.


Forgetful,
I have no idea what, if any, relationship exists between Sig Sauer and JP Sauer.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Don't know if Shilen has it or not. Not an expert on this but I thought the XRAYD only does molecular structure testing of the material. I don't think it does anything for stress type testing. I could be wrong so don't quote me on that.

As far as I know ASR for Barrett....I'm going to say outsourcing the barrel blanks.

Are you talking about Bill Atkinson? Last time I seen Bill was in the Ruger booth at Shot Show like 20 years ago. I don't think Bill is with us anymore.

Broach was around before button rifling. Button rifling came about around 1925 in Germany if I remember my time frame correctly. Broach cutting to my knowledge is being used by pistol barrel makers like Bar Sto Precision. Last I heard they where still broach cutting.

I don't know of any rifle barrel makers off hand pulling a broach anymore. Badger was the last that I knew of.

Krieger did play with broach cutting back in the mid 1980's but abandoned doing them because of the issues that he seen with the broaches and the process.

Later, Frank

Have you ever got hold of a Barrett MRAD? If so, what did you think vs AI AX? Not trying to knock em, several members here love their MRAD... I just have a bit of a hard time believing its the best rifle we could possibly get for our snipers..

 

[Frank Green]

Have you ever got hold of a Barrett MRAD? If so, what did you think vs AI AX? Not trying to knock em, several members here love their MRAD... I just have a bit of a hard time believing its the best rifle we could possibly get for our snipers..

Don’t like the feel/how it handles in different positions. So with that being said...I feel the AI is a much more rounded/better overall platform or should I say more user friendly in my opinion.

Not naming names or branch of service.....and I will quote, “Don’t know how the MRAD beat the AI out?” This was just told to me like a couple of weeks ago.

I know there is more behind the scenes that went on than what I know. I know AI got bounced because one rifles trigger was supposedly under the min weight of pull. Neither rifle to my knowledge at that point in time had been shot for accuracy. There might have been other factors involved so again I don’t know everything and at times cannot comment on certain things.

I questioned it at the time when AI got bounced. So what if the Barrett doesn’t meet accuracy and I will quote, “Guess we/they won’t have a rifle then and we start over.”

Rumor on the street is that some branch of service wasn’t or isn’t satisfied with the testing that was done. Supposedly they are going to buy X amount of rifles from like 5 different makers and run another test. I don’t know if that has happened or is still in the process.

So as of right now.....I don’t know where it’s at anymore.

This should‘ve been done and over a long time ago. Back in PSR or PSR2 go around. AI should be the rifle being fielded. I’m not just saying that because they use our barrels either. The rifle has a long proven track record in any of it’s forms. Yes you can always nit pick a given platform etc....but like I said the rifle is proven and it works.

I know there are some older AIAW’s in inventory in 338 Lapua. Got rebuilt with our barrels back around 8-10 years ago. I got the feedback on how those guns shot and all where hammers. The worst two guns shot like .75moa with box ammo. Most shot in the .5 to .6 range.
(small qty of like a couple of dozen or so...don’t remember the exact number of rifles anymore) All went over to the sand box and put a hurt on the bad guys. So not just with our forces but other forces the AI has proven itself. Rumor was the guns where going to be cut up/scrapped. Myself and a couple of others involved with rebuilding them made a comment to the powers that be that if that happens we would like to save three of them at least. Not for resale or anything like that. Last I heard they are currently in storage and didn’t get the chop saw done to them.

We have a older AW in 308win at the shop. Our barrel.....thing is a laser beam.

Later, Frank

 

[Frank Green]

Button rifling was around at least in the 1880's. The 6mm Lee Navy was button rifled (1895). It was an improvement of Lee-Metford rifling which went back into the 1880's. The caveat with this though is these were polygonal, not sharp shouldered riflings like what this thread, in general, is about.

Interesting! Learn something new every day!

 

[LeftyJason]

Have you ever got hold of a Barrett MRAD? If so, what did you think vs AI AX? Not trying to knock em, several members here love their MRAD... I just have a bit of a hard time believing its the best rifle we could possibly get for our snipers..

Best? Government doesn't do best. Gov does lowest bidder who has to add costs which doesn't make it lowest bidder anymore.

 

[pmclaine]

Don’t like the feel/how it handles in different positions. So with that being said...I feel the AI is a much more rounded/better overall platform or should I say more user friendly in my opinion.

Not naming names or branch of service.....and I will quote, “Don’t know how the MRAD beat the AI out?” This was just told to me like a couple of weeks ago.

I know there is more behind the scenes that went on than what I know. I know AI got bounced because one rifles trigger was supposedly under the min weight of pull. Neither rifle to my knowledge at that point in time had been shot for accuracy. There might have been other factors involved so again I don’t know everything and at times cannot comment on certain things.

I questioned it at the time when AI got bounced. So what if the Barrett doesn’t meet accuracy and I will quote, “Guess we/they won’t have a rifle then and we start over.”

Rumor on the street is that some branch of service wasn’t or isn’t satisfied with the testing that was done. Supposedly they are going to buy X amount of rifles from like 5 different makers and run another test. I don’t know if that has happened or is still in the process.

So as of right now.....I don’t know where it’s at anymore.

This should‘ve been done and over a long time ago. Back in PSR or PSR2 go around. AI should be the rifle being fielded. I’m not just saying that because they use our barrels either. The rifle has a long proven track record in any of it’s forms. Yes you can always nit pick a given platform etc....but like I said the rifle is proven and it works.

I know there are some older AIAW’s in inventory in 338 Lapua. Got rebuilt with our barrels back around 8-10 years ago. I got the feedback on how those guns shot and all where hammers. The worst two guns shot like .75moa with box ammo. Most shot in the .5 to .6 range.
(small qty of like a couple of dozen or so...don’t remember the exact number of rifles anymore) All went over to the sand box and put a hurt on the bad guys. So not just with our forces but other forces the AI has proven itself. Rumor was the guns where going to be cut up/scrapped. Myself and a couple of others involved with rebuilding them made a comment to the powers that be that if that happens we would like to save three of them at least. Not for resale or anything like that. Last I heard they are currently in storage and didn’t get the chop saw done to them.

We have a older AW in 308win at the shop. Our barrel.....thing is a laser beam.

Later, Frank

Someones mad Sig didnt get it so that they could co-ordinate all the other recent Sig gear they have contracted.........

 

[sandwarrior]

Don’t like the feel/how it handles in different positions. So with that being said...I feel the AI is a much more rounded/better overall platform or should I say more user friendly in my opinion.

Not naming names or branch of service.....and I will quote, “Don’t know how the MRAD beat the AI out?” This was just told to me like a couple of weeks ago.

I know there is more behind the scenes that went on than what I know. I know AI got bounced because one rifles trigger was supposedly under the min weight of pull. Neither rifle to my knowledge at that point in time had been shot for accuracy. There might have been other factors involved so again I don’t know everything and at times cannot comment on certain things.

I questioned it at the time when AI got bounced. So what if the Barrett doesn’t meet accuracy and I will quote, “Guess we/they won’t have a rifle then and we start over.”

Rumor on the street is that some branch of service wasn’t or isn’t satisfied with the testing that was done. Supposedly they are going to buy X amount of rifles from like 5 different makers and run another test. I don’t know if that has happened or is still in the process.

So as of right now.....I don’t know where it’s at anymore.

This should‘ve been done and over a long time ago. Back in PSR or PSR2 go around. AI should be the rifle being fielded. I’m not just saying that because they use our barrels either. The rifle has a long proven track record in any of it’s forms. Yes you can always nit pick a given platform etc....but like I said the rifle is proven and it works.

I know there are some older AIAW’s in inventory in 338 Lapua. Got rebuilt with our barrels back around 8-10 years ago. I got the feedback on how those guns shot and all where hammers. The worst two guns shot like .75moa with box ammo. Most shot in the .5 to .6 range.
(small qty of like a couple of dozen or so...don’t remember the exact number of rifles anymore) All went over to the sand box and put a hurt on the bad guys. So not just with our forces but other forces the AI has proven itself. Rumor was the guns where going to be cut up/scrapped. Myself and a couple of others involved with rebuilding them made a comment to the powers that be that if that happens we would like to save three of them at least. Not for resale or anything like that. Last I heard they are currently in storage and didn’t get the chop saw done to them.

We have a older AW in 308win at the shop. Our barrel.....thing is a laser beam.

Later, Frank

Frank,

You said A LOT without mentioning names. There's one strike or another against everything for one reason or another Ai's are too heavy, 700's not durable enough, Win 70's/FN's not going to be around or too expensive (AI???) Tikka's/Sako's not from here (neither are AI's). Remmy's barrels are shit (they are)

The sad truth is most any action could do a good job. But, if they want to build it up, it's got to be built up. Which is going to cost weight. That doesn't seem like much until the people on patrol have to go 24 clicks in the mountains of Afghanistan. So, it's got to be built up just enough to help with accuracy, not just weight to say we have a stiff action.

We have the ability to make it accurate at longer ranges than we've ever had since the 7.62x51 got adopted. 7.62 was inferior then (1954), it's inferior now. Countless times bullets have come forward that blow the 7.62 away for the same weight...or less. Yet, that won't get looked at. It finally has, sort of... New rounds are being looked at then some bullshit, piece of shit "evaluator" (who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground) makes a decision that "it's just not any better than what we already have. Although, every fucking day, civilians with far better ballistics show it in matches across this country. That's the choice, stupid people picking .308 over any number of better choices. Because they live some kind of stupid 'science and compatibility' without having to consult with the encyclopoedia of reality.

 

[Frank Green]

Sandwarrior, I totally agree with you on the 308 and ballistic thing. I know SF is running 6.5mm stuff in both bolt and gas guns. That’s a step in the right direction. I do feel the amount of ammo out there in 308/7.62 NATO they should have a barrel they can change over to in 308. At this early stage they will always find 308 ammo but I would keep pushing to the main caliber being 6.5mm. First custom rifle I built back in the late 80’s was a 6.5mm.

There are ways to help with the weight of the gun. Whenever I’ve done classes for the military and take my guns/barrels along for teaching aids I for example show a M40 barrel and a modified Palma/Rem. Varmint contour barrel and point out that they can easily get a 1# of weight or even more out of the gun and have it not effect accuracy in a negative way. There are options.

 

[pmclaine]

The one thing about removing that weight is the pounding on the shoulder.

I took a class a couple weeks ago firing an M40 - wood stock, Rem Varmint barrel - 107 rounds and my shoulder was toast. By the end of class Im getting sloppy moving the gun further to the right of my center line trying to get the meatier parts of my shoulder involved and degrading my recoil control.

Taken that same class with an M40A1 and an M40A1ish - both much heavier rifles with Pachmayer pads and at same or greater round count I am still shooting without the heavy fatigue.

Guess round count in typical operations is what matters or reduce the recoil by using a different round.

There are always trade offs

OR.....

I could stop being this person....



Edit add.......

Looks like you need to click on the actual Twitter link above the video in order to see the video.

Be sure to turn up the volume - no vulgarity, just humor.

 

[Frank Green]

Yes the trade off in weight is recoil does go up.

I'm talking a 6.5CM type round or even a 308win. A 1# or a tad more in weight reduction should be more than acceptable.

Now if I was shooting a 338 Lapua? That could be a different story. Depending on what the weight of the gun is to begin with I might not want to give up any weight. That being said....I've had a 338 Lapua in a 13/14# pound gun and it didn't bother me a ton to put 40-50 rounds thru it off the bench during testing (had a good muzzle brake/suppressor attachment on it). I was tired after the sessions but didn't feel totally beat up. Would I want to shoot it with out the brake on the barrel? Nope! LOL!

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

@Frank Green how about the SCAR 20? Thoughts on it? Looks like a nice rifle..
@sandwarrior Ive heard conflicting views one way or the other on this - do you know if Sako ever officially made any Mausers?