IainWR wrote:The stickering test is no longer done with an inked bullet. An OAL guage with a real .308" bullet
Well I suppose that is a step forward, but...
IainWR wrote:if it is under limit (2.800") the rifle fails.
This suggests that factory ammo loaded to 2.8" OAL with the same bullet shape as used in the test might actually be able to contact the rifling of a rifle which passed the test! Furthermore, unless a bullet is specifically and carefully selected which is at the extreme of the range of variance in the ogive to meplat dimension (where significant variance can and does occur), the results could be even more skewed. And after it has been used a few times, unless replaced, the soft copper is likely to be deformed, potentially further skewing the test. As described it sounds flawed.
..
What about the difference between 7.62 x 51 (black and green spot RG) and .308 Win (with an SMK)? - I know of two rifles (one was mine) that'd shoot RG fine, but if you tried to eject a loaded round (only discovered first time due to an interruption of shooting) of .308 it would pull the bullet leaving it in the lands...
...We all know that a good TR rifle is built to tight tolerances, so a RUAG may not fit in some rifles set up for RG...
...With the possible exception of Enfield convertions, I'm sure most TR actions are fine with the slight difference...but it doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the possible issue...
Dromia, thank you for posting the last statement from Robin Pizer, it was something I had not seen before. I also note a Rpizer has signed up on the forum, it would be good to have someone with experience of the NRA 'at the top' on board.
/d
Du lytter aldrig til de ord jeg siger. Du ser mig kun for det tøj jeg har paa ...
IainWR wrote:The stickering test is no longer done with an inked bullet. An OAL guage with a real .308" bullet
Well I suppose that is a step forward, but...
IainWR wrote:if it is under limit (2.800") the rifle fails.
This suggests that factory ammo loaded to 2.8" OAL with the same bullet shape as used in the test might actually be able to contact the rifling of a rifle which passed the test! Furthermore, unless a bullet is specifically and carefully selected which is at the extreme of the range of variance in the ogive to meplat dimension (where significant variance can and does occur), the results could be even more skewed. And after it has been used a few times, unless replaced, the soft copper is likely to be deformed, potentially further skewing the test. As described it sounds flawed.
..
What about the difference between 7.62 x 51 (black and green spot RG) and .308 Win (with an SMK)? - I know of two rifles (one was mine) that'd shoot RG fine, but if you tried to eject a loaded round (only discovered first time due to an interruption of shooting) of .308 it would pull the bullet leaving it in the lands...
...We all know that a good TR rifle is built to tight tolerances, so a RUAG may not fit in some rifles set up for RG...
...With the possible exception of Enfield convertions, I'm sure most TR actions are fine with the slight difference...but it doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the possible issue...
Dougan
If your rifle will not extract a round of RUAG without pulling the bullet, take it back to the gunsmith that that put the barrel on as he has got it WRONG. The leade has been cut too short or the throat is under size.
Undersized throats were very common in the days of RG as the RG bullet was undersized, that is also one of the reasons that we have used tight spec barrels of .296 x .3065" rather than full size barrels of .300 x .3075/.308". Enfield conversions were notorious for having tight barrels and also they were specifically throated for the 144gr undersized RG bullet. With the change to the 155 gr bullet most if not all serious shooters had the the throat recut for the RG 155 bullet and then again for the Sierra 155, or more probably had a new barrel fitted.
RUAG is loaded to 2.75" specifically so that it will chamber in a properly cut chamber. What is apparent is that some gunsmiths do not seem to know what they are doing and don't understand rule 150.
I find the proof test a bit odd myself Gaz... I suppose it's one safe way of testing that a rifle has been put together properly, or that any work done on a bolt or action was good...
...but other than surviving the test, I'm not sure what it proves about a chamber...
Steve E wrote:Dougan
If your rifle will not extract a round of RUAG without pulling the bullet, take it back to the gunsmith that that put the barrel on as he has got it WRONG. The leade has been cut too short or the throat is under size.
Undersized throats were very common in the days of RG as the RG bullet was undersized, that is also one of the reasons that we have used tight spec barrels of .296 x .3065" rather than full size barrels of .300 x .3075/.308". Enfield conversions were notorious for having tight barrels and also they were specifically throated for the 144gr undersized RG bullet. With the change to the 155 gr bullet most if not all serious shooters had the the throat recut for the RG 155 bullet and then again for the Sierra 155, or more probably had a new barrel fitted.
RUAG is loaded to 2.75" specifically so that it will chamber in a properly cut chamber. What is apparent is that some gunsmiths do not seem to know what they are doing and don't understand rule 150.
Thanks for you reply Steve - No need to worry though. My rifle was an Enfield conversion, which had an unsuitable barrel (far to 'good') for the action...then the switch to .308 put it past my personal safety tolerances (due to the closeness of the bullet to the lands), so I traded it in; agreeing with the RFD that it should be broken up for parts (It wasn't worth much and I didn't want it sold on).
The other rifle is someone else's - It's a Barnard action, and they've taken care to ensure that it's OK with RG; which will be used until it goes in for some work.
Gawd - it really makes me wonder how the rest of us who don't shoot a 308 will get along without the NRA's advice!
The same problem exists for every rifle/cartridge - but somehow we manage to survive and shoot!
As long as they persist with the 'issued ammunition' stupidity - one batch of ammo has to fit everyone's rifle - there will be issues!
If everyone were simply allowed to load their own ammo for their own rifle (as the FTR shooters somehow manage to do) the problem would disappear. (And don't trot out the juniors thing - most kids are smarter than their parents!)
Dougan
If your rifle will not extract a round of RUAG without pulling the bullet, take it back to the gunsmith that that put the barrel on as he has got it WRONG. The leade has been cut too short or the throat is under size.
Undersized throats were very common in the days of RG as the RG bullet was undersized, that is also one of the reasons that we have used tight spec barrels of .296 x .3065" rather than full size barrels of .300 x .3075/.308". Enfield conversions were notorious for having tight barrels and also they were specifically throated for the 144gr undersized RG bullet. With the change to the 155 gr bullet most if not all serious shooters had the the throat recut for the RG 155 bullet and then again for the Sierra 155, or more probably had a new barrel fitted.
RUAG is loaded to 2.75" specifically so that it will chamber in a properly cut chamber. What is apparent is that some gunsmiths do not seem to know what they are doing and don't understand rule 150.[/quote]
With respect, that's a load of b******. I have no idea if my 308 FTR reamer (ground to my spec. for Lapua brass with the 155 Lapua bullet) will be suitable for a round of 308 RUAG but it works perfectly with my ammunition loaded to my spec. That's NOT WRONG!
I would suggest that it's not gunsmiths who don't know what they are doing, it's shooters who don't understand the issue.
The Gun Pimp wrote:With respect, that's a load of b******. I have no idea if my 308 FTR reamer (ground to my spec. for Lapua brass with the 155 Lapua bullet) will be suitable for a round of 308 RUAG but it works perfectly with my ammunition loaded to my spec. That's NOT WRONG!
I would suggest that it's not gunsmiths who don't know what they are doing, it's shooters who don't understand the issue.
Steve's comment is absolutely 100% correct for a rifle intended for use in NRA TR competition (and it is abundantly clear that is what he's talking about from the context) where ammunition is "as issued." If you cannot extract a round without pulling the bullet then the rifle is not fit for the purpose and may be unsafe.
Please do not confuse this with the issue of whether ammunition should or should not be issued, as that is a whole separate question. (Incidentally, I'm on the side of moving to any ammunition purely on the grounds of the ludicrous cost of factory these days.)
The .308 Proof mark on the side of the barrel leaves people assuming the rifle has a .308 chamber therefore any .308 round will fit whereas more accurately it means a .308 cartridge case will fit and everything else needs to be confirmed.
This year I have seen a .308 chambered rifle that would not accept a round with a 155 Lapua Scenar built to 2.795" and one that left a 185 juggernaut all but falling out of the case with a .060" jump. Both had current proof marks so where they wrongly built? Without knowing what specific bullet they were chambered for it is hard to say. One thing is for sure, a chamber for a standard Bisley/RUAG issue round is not the same as the chamber in an F/TR rifle built for a 210 grain Berger other than by name.
Rifle builders fitting customs barrels will invariably chamber to the customers needs or specifications which is all well and good for the customer at that point as they know exactly what length they need to build to, great if they are the keepers for life however once the rifle is sold on this information can be lost. I am about to have a rifle Proofed and as well as the Proof mark the barrel will also have the bullet weight and powder load marked on the side of the barrel so the test standard is preserved forever. OK, this is for a 150+ year old rifle however this standard can also be applied to new custom builds if needed.
Another 'problem' is competitive advantage, both the rifle builder and the shooter want their rifle to be as accurate as possible and if a particular jump works for a particular type of issue ammunition then of course some/many builders will chamber to this requirement and short of measuring the OAL it will be impossible to tell this has been done, it will pass go/No-Go checks and have a valid Proof mark so what could possibly be wrong?
My view is every single rifle shot in a match with issue ammunition needs to be checked with a gauge at the start of the season, details recorded and the barrel marked accordingly and an undertaking to the effect that the chamber will not be modified signed by the shooter and even then the dimensional integrity of the chamber cannot be 100% assured.
I agree with Vince, just because a bullet is left jammed in the lands when the round is un-chambered does not mean it is wrong, it simply means the rifle chamber is not suited to that particular round and indeed the rifle may never have been built to conform to rule 150. Equally Steve is correct, if indeed a rifle is built to comply to the current rule 150 and leaves a bullet jammed there is a problem.
The bottom line here is do not assume just any .308 round is going to chamber and shoot nicely in a rifle just because it has a current proof mark and a barrel stamped .308WIN
/d
Du lytter aldrig til de ord jeg siger. Du ser mig kun for det tøj jeg har paa ...
