The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

TR 140

Steve E wrote:TR 140

Thanks.

Gaz,

Yes, I've tried long jumps, but it didn't really help. I suspect that my chamber throats are all rather long for the bullet as we 'Effers' tend to have our barrels throated on the long side so that they can use a 155 seated shallow alongside a 185 Juggernaut which won't be too deep. The 2156 won't shoot in a Howa 1500 Varmint I've been playing with as 'an affordable clubman's F/TR rifle' either, and yet its 2155 ancestor and the 155gn A-Max do very well in it. In fact, the NRA's RUAG ammo has given me the smallest group to date out of the beast, albeit at an absolutely anaemic 2,600 fps from its 22-inch barrel. I have a former TR RPA with a Krieger 1-13" on it waiting in the wings as part of this project, and this may be the rifle that finally shoots the bullet well for me.

I think on the F/TR bullet choice / preparation issue, there are two issues. One is holding elevation really tight as this IS essential with such small rings and the conseq. It's this factor that has caused at least some move back from 190s and heavier to lighter bullets for comps held in most 'normal conditions'. The windage benefits are cancelled out by, sometimes more than simply negated, by poorer elevation control.

Ignore last post - I hit a key that submitted the post prematurely, then the damned software wouldn't let me edit it for some reason. Here's the whole post

Gaz,

Yes, I've tried long jumps, but it didn't really help. I suspect that my chamber throats are all rather long for the bullet as we 'Effers' tend to have our barrels throated on the long side so that they can use a 155 seated shallow alongside a 185 Juggernaut (say) which won't be too deep. The 2156 won't shoot in a Howa 1500 Varmint I've been playing with as 'an affordable clubman's F/TR rifle' either, and yet its 2155 ancestor and the 155gn A-Max do very well in it. In fact, the NRA's RUAG ammo has given me the smallest group to date out of the beast, albeit at an absolutely anaemic 2,600 fps from its 22-inch barrel. I have a former TR RPA with a Krieger 1-13" on it waiting in the wings as part of this project, and this may be the rifle that finally shoots the bullet well for me.

I think on the F/TR bullet choice / preparation issue, there are two issues. One is holding elevation really tight as this IS essential with such small rings and the consequent reduction in windage error margins if you stray more than a little above or below the waterline. It's this factor IMO that has caused at least some move back from 190s and heavier to lighter bullets for comps held in most 'normal conditions'. The windage benefits of the 'heavies' are cancelled out by, sometimes worse than simply negated, by poorer elevation control.

The other issue / factor is psychological. We all know that once a certrain level of rifle and ammunition precision is reached, it's about the nut behind the butt more than spending inordinate amounts of time knocking another 1/100th of an MOA off group sizes or obtaining 3 points extra BC. BUT ... because we're into a quasi-benchrest type discipline and there's a lot of Big Boys Toys stuff, it's very difficult not to try to go for the max in specifications .... or at least as much as we can afford anyway. Once you start the bullet weighing, measuring, batching game, it's difficult to stop. If you have a great match immediately afterwards, you think - well I / the rifle didn't miss that, but what if you have a poor performance? The nagging feeling that you brought it on yourself by cutting a few corners comes more readily to mind than the more likely one that you just shot badly.

Some things may satisfy both urges / needs. Bullet pointing (preceded by trimming in some bullets' cases) has got a fair following now amongst many 'Effers' ('Open' as well as F/TR) who are convinced in themselves that it improves elevations at long ranges. I've got to say I'm a bit agnostic on that one, sometimes I'm a believer, more often not.

Another factor that I see a lot, especially amongst the relatively newly arrived and the very keen, is that external ballistics are easy to measure and quantify given basic information thanks to Bryan Litz, while other factors are much less so. This is particularly as everybody quotes the wind speed of 10 mph at 90-degrees figure and this exaggerates the ballistic differences between different bullets' performance. If you look at your corrected wind values after a match on the plotting sheet, the equivalent wind speed changes between shots are actually much smaller than 10 mph. Just as well .... if we did see 10 mph crosswind changes between shots, even the 230gn Berger Hybrid would have no chance of coping if a wind change of that magnitude were missed. In fact, you'd be off the |F-Class frame completely and earn nul points!

I keep telling people that especially for short and mid range shooting, group usually counts for more than ballistics too. I'm not sure anybody believes me. At long range, it's the terminal velocity that really turns me rather than a relatively minor improvement in windage. Having the bullet reach the target at 1,300 fps plus is a real benefit with a 1-MOA five-ring in my mind as it removes the risk of 'transonic funnies'. The US Army did a lot of work in late .30-06 days on the 173gn M1 FMJBT bullet and its Frankford Arsenal match offspring that was also used in the contemporary US sniper round and found that retaining 1,226 fps terminal velocity was crucial. Drop below it and group dispersion increased markedly (like doubled) and wind changes had a noticeably larger effect too. Whether that applied to that single bullet design at the rate of spin a 1-10" twist barrel gave it from whatever Remy or Winchester M70 they used back then, or whether it's a law of the Medes and Persians, I don't know. But I have a strong feeling there is some such point between 1,200 and 1,300 fps that affects most bullets and sees their performance degrade. This is where the TR target size and ring area starts to be rather important when you're shooting the old 155 SMK at maybe 2,950 fps in 1,000 yard comps. I just wonder how anybody hit even a 2-MOA 5-ring at this distance in the RG 146gn 'Green Spot' era!

EagerNoSkill wrote:Sierra 2156
Very good cost effective bullet - great for up to 600
1. Hard to point - very sharp
ENS Rating

Berger 155.5
Out the box - most uniform bullet - great for up to 1000
1. Should be pointed - does improve uniformity and BC
2. you CAN Bearing surface sort and (variation range 0.000 to 0.06) BEST out of box
3. Weight sort them (+- 0.5 grain variations)
G1 BC is 0.464 range
ENS Rating

Berger 155 Hybrid
Out the box - best BC bullet - great for up to 1000
1. Should be pointed - does improve uniformity and BC
2. you SHOULD Bearing surface sort and (variation range 0.000 to 0.09)
3. Weight sort them (+- 0.7 grain variations)
G1 BC is 0.484 range - Pointed goes to +- 0.500 G1
ENS Rating
NOTE that I am very partial / biased on this one - it is my lucky bullet! party2

The reason the 2156 is hard to point you bell end is because Sierra actually bothered to do it for you :55:

Its already pointed clapclap

Joking aside Tim...partially, I don't think for general shooting and training you could beat the 2156.

You shot mine at 1000 and did suitably well with it, strange gun, short range/training load, strange gun owner...still shot a string of Vs and 5s at 1000 against an F class target.

We both like the hybrids, although as we now know they can be funny on seating.

It seems that although you can batch them perfectly for bearing surface, when the spud contacts the nose you can get up to 7thou variance in seating depth, we think this may be down to variations in the profile of the nose, it certainly pays to seat long then adjust each round to the final OAL (measured with a decent comparator rather than tip to base obviously).

Good job the things are so jump insensitive then...right kids

The bloody things are so pricey that for a match set, I don't mind going through the motions.

Like Tim says, the 155.5s are very good out of the box, but I would not compare my hybrid load with my 2156 load at 1000 with a blow on.

I hear an awful lot of F/TR folk say "Oh I don't bother measuring this or that"...don't believe it, most of them do

I cannot comment on Scenars. I think sometimes advantage is perceived.

"It must be the best because X won this with it"....I think we forget that match winners often add something more to the mix than just the bullet...talent perhaps?

The scenar used to be "The bullet". I wonder how many who now shoot bergers, if given a blind test using a load optimised for their rifle, could actually tell?

Last year I beat everyone in my club bar 1, mostly open class, 30+, and the one that got away was only by one point.

Some of these guys were Team GB, some very good Open class....Don't worry it wont happen again, some are only just speaking to me.

Nearly all were using berger bullets.

Were they all having a bad day, or was I just incredibly lucky...could not really say, but given the difference between my set up and a 7mm Open f setup those bullets were working hard, so the 2156 cant be that bad can it

Steve E wrote:TR 140

Now, I remember watching Steve testing these loads and was mightily impressed....no doubt TR140 will go through the roof when everyone cottons on!!

Just got to con him into giving my lee a look over and a good session

Am now looking at .308 bullets for my TRG now that I have some TR140 coming! Any recommendations would be welcome.

godfather wrote:Am now looking at .308 bullets for my TRG now that I have some TR140 coming! Any recommendations would be welcome.

SMK's from the Bisley range office?

What a fantstic thread, reminds me of when the forum started.

Keep it up

DM

Maggot wrote:Now, I remember watching Steve testing these loads and was mightily impressed....no doubt TR140 will go through the roof when everyone cottons on!!

Most of us have; I think you'll find the philosophy behind TR140 pricing is not what you think.

..