LMT Barrel conversion review and accuracy report, before conversion vs. after D Wilson conversion

[matt33]

I'm going to post a quick review, as I was unable to find much information relating to LMT barrel conversion accuracy, specifically relating to how a barrel performed before sending it to D Wilson for conversion versus post conversion results.

I'm happy to say accuracy seems unchanged following the barrel conversion, which is to say it is very good.

I used the exact same ammunition, loaded on the same day with the same lots of components. This is hand loaded 77 grain Sierra match king, but other ammunition from AAC produced repeatable results as well. All groups were 10 rounds fired at 100 yards.

The barrel I'm focusing on today is a 16" Bartlein 223 from Craddock Precision. Prior to sending it off, I fired this group from a mocked up traditional AR upper:

I just came back inside from firing this group post D Wilson conversion:


That high shot was my first round, some of that might have been me, dealing with 20-30 mph wind and I'm not necessarily a precision shooter. That said, I'm very pleased with the results. I wanted to document my very unscientific findings, just in case anyone was curious.

 

[unclemoak]

Thanks for sharing your findings

 

[matt33]

Thanks for sharing your findings

Thanks for getting it done. You also did a Daniel Defense 14.5 SOCOM profile barrel for the same rifle, that thing also hammers.

 

[Tex68w]

I have multiple D. Wilson LMT conversions, all of which are Proof CF barrels and every single one shoots amazing. I’ve had him chop a couple of factory barrels as well and I noticed no accuracy degradation. Best in the biz for this service, full stop.

 

[matt33]

Just a quick follow-up, as the rifle is now in final form. It's still shooting great, I switched to a more practical optic, Vortex 1-10 razor. I've read some people shit on this scope online, but I think it's outstanding for my particular use. It can still shoot small groups, it's approaching Red Dot speed up close, and it's perfectly suited for an accurate AR-15 inside of 500-600 yards

 

[mkollman74]

I've never had a bad barrel conversion from D. Wilson.

 

[Tex68w]

Just a quick follow-up, as the rifle is now in final form. It's still shooting great, I switched to a more practical optic, Vortex 1-10 razor. I've read some people shit on this scope online, but I think it's outstanding for my particular use. It can still shoot small groups, it's approaching Red Dot speed up close, and it's perfectly suited for an accurate AR-15 inside of 500-600 yards

View attachment 8643059View attachment 8643060

I ran the Vortex Razor HD Gen 3 1-10x on my 14.5" 6 ARC this past season and it certainly got the job done, although I never took a shot on game beyond 300. I have since moved that optic to another rifle to move to a new optic in hopes of gaining some more top end, a larger objective and a better reticle for hunting. My biggest complaint about the Razor 1-10x is how large the center dot is in the reticle and when being used for hunting it doesn't allow for a very precise shot on game at distance.

I've replaced it with a Leupold Mk HD 3.6-18x in hopes of rectifying all of the areas where the Vortex fell short. It has 8x more power, a 20mm larger objective for more light in those final minutes of golden hour, a better reticle for more precise shots and all while only weighing an extra 4oz. If the Razor fits your mission then rock on because it's a great optic, I only replaced mine because I simply just demanded more out of the optic.

 

[matt33]

I ran the Vortex Razor HD Gen 3 1-10x on my 14.5" 6 ARC this past season and it certainly got the job done, although I never took a shot on game beyond 300. I have since moved that optic to another rifle to move to a new optic in hopes of gaining some more top end, a larger objective and a better reticle for hunting. My biggest complaint about the Razor 1-10x is how large the center dot is in the reticle and when being used for hunting it doesn't allow for a very precise shot on game at distance.

I've replaced it with a Leupold Mk HD 3.6-18x in hopes of rectifying all of the areas where the Vortex fell short. It has 8x more power, a 20mm larger objective for more light in those final minutes of golden hour, a better reticle for more precise shots and all while only weighing an extra 4oz. If the Razor fits your mission then rock on because it's a great optic, I only replaced mine because I simply just demanded more out of the optic.

I almost bought a Leupold MK5 3-18x for this rifle, based on the same logic that it's only an additional 4-5 oz. However, the mount would probably be slightly heavier at 35 mm, and I'd still feel the need to add a piggyback red dot, so it's really probably another 10 oz or so.

Additionally, then I was thinking that I could just get a Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x, as that's only a few ounces more than the Leupold. Things started to snowball in a hurry

I plan on building or buying a Geissele 6 ARC soon, so I figured I would go that way with the next rifle.

I believe the vortex center dot is .2 mil (.72"), but I like that it is translucent, I can kind of see behind the dot. I don't dial with this scope, so the reticle subtensions give me a finer aiming point at distance. I haven't taken this scope beyond 305 yards yet, but I was able to keep things at or slightly below MOA at that distance. I hope to take it out to 600 plus this weekend.

 

[Tex68w]

I almost bought a Leupold MK5 3-18x for this rifle, based on the same logic that it's only an additional 4-5 oz. However, the mount would probably be slightly heavier at 35 mm, and I'd still feel the need to add a piggyback red dot, so it's really probably another 10 oz or so.

Additionally, then I was thinking that I could just get a Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x, as that's only a few ounces more than the Leupold. Things started to snowball in a hurry

I plan on building or buying a Geissele 6 ARC soon, so I figured I would go that way with the next rifle.

I believe the vortex center dot is .2 mil (.72"), but I like that it is translucent, I can kind of see behind the dot. I don't dial with this scope, so the reticle subtensions give me a finer aiming point at distance. I haven't taken this scope beyond 305 yards yet, but I was able to keep things at or slightly below MOA at that distance. I hope to take it out to 600 plus this weekend.

Oh I get it. Once I decided to move out of the 1-10x I considered the TT315 (heavy, crap reticles, pricey), ZCO 420 (heavy, pricey), NX8 2.5-20x (meh glass) and the Mk5 3.6-18x (slightly less meh glass). I went with a piggy back RMR for the Mk5 instead of my usual ACRO P2, saved a whopping 1oz lol. I think for how I use this rifle the Mk5 will be the best trade-off overall.

 

[BurtG]

Just a quick follow-up, as the rifle is now in final form. It's still shooting great, I switched to a more practical optic, Vortex 1-10 razor. I've read some people shit on this scope online, but I think it's outstanding for my particular use. It can still shoot small groups, it's approaching Red Dot speed up close, and it's perfectly suited for an accurate AR-15 inside of 500-600 yards

View attachment 8643059View attachment 8643060

I agreee with that scope.

For me I find it easiest to zero and shoot groups , using the 1 mil hold line , then making sure gorup
Is 3.6” high

 

[Bigjake83]

Take a look at the New Bushnell Match Pro, 3-18.

I did a short review on here in the Optics Section. Still very impressed with the quality, im up to 5 now.

Once I finish load development on the New Geissele 18" SPR Cut Rifled Barrel, one of my Bushnell 3-18 MP will have a permanent home on there.

New purchase - MATCH PRO ED 3-18X50 RIFLESCOPE

I picked up the New Bushnell 3-18 Match Pro, and when comparing it in a Side by Side to my Leupold MK5 3.6-18 IMO I'd say the clarity on the Match Pro is definitely better with less CA. The closest house to me is exactly 207 yards away and I can clearly make out the large Phillips head screws on...

www.snipershide.com