the basic question posed, is whether or not you can replicate what i have done in formulating my little "system" for field shooting my ar-15 rifle in the 6.8mm remington spc chambering.
and, the basic straightforward answer is, i dunno.
as a matter of first consideration, know that the ar-15 rifle is generally regarded as a very accurate weapon. it is not unusual at all for a given ar to shoot very well, but every now and again an ar appears that does not shoot so well. my own rifle was purchased in pieces, with an e.r. shaw barrel, and shaw was one of the first to supply a barrel in this caliber, and a rock river arms receiver, a bushmaster fore end, and a bolt and bolt carrier assembly from model 1 sales.
it did not function reliably at first, as the bolt and extractor were not correctly fabricated for the 6.8mm caliber. only after some grief was the functioning issue solved by the purchase of a bolt group from lewis machine and tool, which has functioned without mishap since installation. i will purchase more parts and equipment from lewis machine and tool as the opportunity presents itself: they are great to deal with, and service is prompt, and they make excellent stuff.
the e.r. shaw barrel has shot better since i did an impromptu "crown job" on the barrel, removing what i took to be a burr right at the muzzle with a little valve grind compound & oil and a dummy 7mm mag round with a 175 grain partition. i simply put the valve compound on the bullet, put the bullet in the end of the barrel, and twisted and turned. hint: it doesn't take very long at all, nor much effort, to remove considerable metal from a muzzle so ministered to.
as a matter of second consideration, it may not be your fate to concoct a load which shoots so well in your rifle. i struggled for over two years to find the load that i have now standardized, that being 28.2 grains of hodgdon 322 (h-322) powder pushing a 115 grain sierra matchking bullet, in remington cases and with a cci large rifle primer.
my first efforts tried all manner of bullets, and lots of powders, but nothing shot like the above combination. there is a certain amount of serendipity in my discovery of a good load, and all i can say is, nothing beats shit house luck. oh, some diligence may have entered into the picture, but luck and circumstance cannot be discounted.
in the 6.8mm remington spc there are questions and issues of basic chamber design, with the spec 1 chamber being the saami standard, and the various spec ii chambers being touted as delivering higher velocities. some people also tout a slower rate of twist as a device to lower chamber pressures and/or increase velocity. i haven't the foggiest notion whether the e.r. shaw barrel i have is a spec 1 or spec 2 chamber, what sort of leade it has, nor have i even bothered to figure out the twist rate.
the fact is, it is the barrel i have, the only one i can afford as it was purchased during a different economic lifetime than the one i live in now, and it is what i am going to keep. all i know is, that the load and the barrel (20") produce 2,550 fps with my load, it gives no pressure signs, and it is wonderfully accurate.
why lose any sleep over it? it is what it is. in short, i do not know if you will find a rifle and a load that will perform for you, and i most certainly do not know how you define what is acceptable or unacceptable performance to you. me, i tend to accommodate myself and figure a way. i do not know about you.
the only way for you to find out about these things, and how you will react and adapt to things as they develop, is to buy a rifle, and start shooting, ... , and find your own path.
and, as a matter of a third consideration, there is you. will you work at achieving your own "system?" i am something of a dunderhead, in my own little way, but i am also a relatively smart dunderhead, in my own little way. (hey, it's all certified. laughing. all i can tell you, is some agree with my assessment, and some rather spiritedly dissent.) i have studied ballistics charts, and tables until bleary eyed, and i have looked at and tried many combinations of sighting equipment arriving at the "system." and, i have purchased a ballistics program from arthur pejsa, and noodled around with it for many an evening, to gain a grasp and feel for rifle trajectories in general, and for the trajectory of my own little pet load.
finally, it all came together, but not without a whole lot of tinkering, experimentation and just thinking about how to do something. i may not be brilliant, but, i am slow to, as the old saying goes. you just gotta stick with it.
would it have come together if i had not mounted the 2x7 leupold vari-x compact scope on the rifle? not all scopes have the same size stadia in their reticules, and not all of them subtend the same degree of arc as the little compound leupold does between the stadia points, and not all such designs are as compatible with the "solution" i have found.
and, as a final consideration. i am pretty straight forward, and i am pretty objective in my assessment of my peculiarities, weaknesses and habits. i am not, ... , uhm, ... , organized or very disciplined. my attention wanders: as cheryl raber once said, rather accurately i think , john, you are a new goose born into a new world every day. so, i have long known that i would never ever compile log books or shooting books, or a chart of "come ups" and "dial downs," or could ever remember or record the "click" values associated with adjusting an optic to different ranges.
i am a.d.d. i am not anal.
so, i have arrived at my present happy condition with a rifle that is accurate, and with a rifle that is equipped with an optic that allows me what is essentially a "point and shoot" solution with a standard load out to 400-450 yards or so, which is a happy coincidence because that is about as far as i can hold with any degree of regularity. and, much past that, i cannot and will not ask, with this particular rifle.
so, can you replicate my path? do you want to? will you find a rifle and load that shoots, and will you develop your own scheme to point it, without a lot of fussing around?
were i you, i would give it a whirl. even when my efforts were not bearing fruit, it was a fun and interesting process, and i was learning a lot. mostly, i was learning how to analyze what i wanted to achieve, and to objectively assess whether it was worth achieving, and whether i could do it.
i cannot gaurentee you that you can replicate what i have done. i cannot guarantee you that you will get a shooter, or that you will develop a good load for that rifle. i cannot guarantee you that your load will shoot, or that if you use my loads, that they will shoot or develop the velocity they do in my rifle.
i suspect that you shoot as "well" as i do. all my friends out shoot me with my own guns, particularly rollie taylor, who always says, gosh, john, your guns always shoot so well when i shoot them. ("you know, in contrast to when you shoot them.")
someday, alice, to the moon.
you may end up with a gun and load that requires you to get targets, paste them at every range from 50 to 600 yards in 50 yard increments, and then record the scope settings necessary to get the bullet to the target with reasonable accuracy and repeatability, and then you may be reduced to dialing in those settings whenever you shoot to a different range.
any, you may end up preferring that, if it fits your personality, and if you feel "reassured" by the "certainty" of the methodology and results. more power to you.
so, my paean your pain, or my paean your paean, as well, that is the question.
john jay @ 02.09.2011
p.s. others might just use the approach of buying a marlin 336 chambered in the tried and true .30-30 winchester, and take the path of "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." me, i don't want anybody that close. to tell you the truth, i would rather be served by proficiency than courage.
and, i will let you in on a little secret, in all of this. if you can hit someone at 400 yards, or even 450 yards, then it is quite likely that you are in a certain amount of risk yourself. and, this holds true, even more emphatically, if we are talking about you ability to hit someone being limited to 200, or even 150 yards. at that distance they are even more likely to be able to "touch" you right back. so, i favor having as much proficiency with as much distance as i can attain, i just don't hold to deluding myself that i am any kind of a marksman past the distances discussed above. i would like to be a good shot at 700 yards with this rifle and load, but, it is just not in the cards. no use fooling myself in the matter.
so, don't stand out in the open, doing jumping jacks. if you catch my drift.
were i you, i would work at it, and practice, practice, practice, and then practice some more. and, keep it simple, stupid.
Comments