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

Hmm.. I had some factory Fed 180's that were spitting out primers last year, they are the only bullets I have ever shot that have blown primers, but I do agree that factory ammunition has the potential to be safer and the better factory ammunition is very consistent as well.

I would shoot Lapua 170HPS given the chance but even a couple of years ago it was GBP215/100

Going slightly off topic for this post, although I think we have answered the original question; if I were to be taking up F class now, in the light of hindsight, I would chose FTR.

I would then have my .308 chambered specifically for the RUAG ammunition sold by the NRA.

I would then have the choice of either 'tweaking' my own ammo, or settling for the 155 RUAG.

I am 66 and have limited F experience, realistically a lot of people are going to have to have disasters for me to be European Champion. I have to load and shoot realistically, and for me the 'cheaper' option above would be the case. I chose open and now shoot 7mm. On a good day I hope I can still be competitive because most of the variables have been taken out by following the lead of others who have done all the research. Shooting is my sport, my passion, and to do well to personal satisfaction is the goal. If I pick up the odd prize in whatever discipline (three minor places last year) then so much the better. I will be sticking with open because of the fairly substancial investment in kit.

Besides, an evening at the reloading bench is far much more entertaining than an evening with Coronation Farm and much more satisfying (66 remember) than 'the other'

Rule 150 applies specifically to TR. The NRA does not specify how you set up your rifle, other than requiring compliance with SAAMI / CIP or agreed reduced dimensions in the more standardised disciplines of TR and FTR. In ALL competitions / training / recreational shooting the shooter is solely responsible for the safety of the rifle / ammo combination, although in issue ammo events the NRA takes steps to assure itself that the ammunition is suitable for use in a firearm that complies with rule 150. However, if your rifle / ammo are exhibiting signs of distress you may be asked (ie politely told) to desist.

The reduced dimensions are not primarily aimed at RUAG ammo. They were introduced to regulate what was a common practice of building rifles to shoot RG effectively, and the dimensions were established with the approval of the Proof Houses on the condition that the ammunition met a lower max pressure limit than CIP. That lower pressure limit is one of the serious constraints on RUAG in building the ammunition.

And there is nothing special about RUAG ammo, other than that it is built to very high standards of consistency. It is a CIP .308 Win case loaded with a Sierra Matchking 2155 bullet to an OAL of 2.800". It has a minimum MV out of a 30" x 1/13 twist reduced chamber barrel of 2920 ft/sec and a max average working pressure under CIP test conditions no greater than 3650 Bar.

Appendix V doesn't affect the ammo spec - it's all about dangerous ammunition and signs of excessive pressure.

Iain

The economics of reloading depend on the type of shooting that you do. If target rifle is your choice and you shoot 2 sighter and 10 to count competitions then I could not make the case for the investment. By way of contrast, I shoot in short range Historical competitions, plus Gallery Rifle. All my bullets are lead, scrounging is becoming more difficult but, to date, I have obtained my lead free. Most of my rifles are chambered in obsolete calibres--factory ammo is not an option. Cases are expensive if they cannot be formed from some modern calbre, but they last virtually for ever if annealed ocasionally. The result is that my handloads cost less then .22 ammo. Being 70 years old and having reloaded for 40 years or so, a lot of my equipment didn't cost much!
Fred

MiLisCer wrote:But Rog' it is the ammo the NRA supply at their comps - so people are going to build rifles around it - surely easier just to allow home loads - which they don't - ah but can't do that as it would be unfair apparently?! - no more unfair than re-chambering a rifle to RUAG just to shoot NRA ammo!

I don’t know of anyone who has said that using handloads, if allowed, would be 'unfair', but it would certainly change the nature, and the outcome, of the competition dramatically, and the vast majority of competitive TR shooters seem to be broadly satisfied with the 'issued ammunition' principle (I take it you shoot TR in NRA competition and support using handloads).

Do you really think that the benefits that could be obtained by minor chambering differences are comparable to those you could obtain by using super efficient bullets at 3200 fps? No *more* unfair? It is chalk and cheese!

..

rox wrote:

MiLisCer wrote:But Rog' it is the ammo the NRA supply at their comps - so people are going to build rifles around it - surely easier just to allow home loads - which they don't - ah but can't do that as it would be unfair apparently?! - no more unfair than re-chambering a rifle to RUAG just to shoot NRA ammo!

I don’t know of anyone who has said that using handloads, if allowed, would be 'unfair', but it would certainly change the nature, and the outcome, of the competition dramatically, and the vast majority of competitive TR shooters seem to be broadly satisfied with the 'issued ammunition' principle (I take it you shoot TR in NRA competition and support using handloads).

Do you really think that the benefits that could be obtained by minor chambering differences are comparable to those you could obtain by using super efficient bullets at 3200 fps? No *more* unfair? It is chalk and cheese!

..

Rox

It is in the thread about NRA finance, when asked about why the NRA was supplying ammo etc and that handloads were not allowed - That was the response in a nutshell, saying it was unfair to those who did not or would not handload - it was also brought up in that thread about people simply building rifles around the RUAG being the same thing - the response was that apparently nobody was!!

Mike

MiLisCer wrote: Rox

It is in the thread about NRA finance, when asked about why the NRA was supplying ammo etc and that handloads were not allowed - That was the response in a nutshell, saying it was unfair to those who did not or would not handload - it was also brought up in that thread about people simply building rifles around the RUAG being the same thing - the response was that apparently nobody was!!

Mike

Oh well I can't find that thread by seraching on the word 'unfair', so I guess it depends on your 'nutshell', and you obviously don't want to respond to my points.

..

Why would you want to spend all that money building a rifle to use a off the shelf factory round when you can hand build a much more accurate round to fit any rifle chambered for .308 your self for very little money compared to getting a rifle built around the factory offering.That makes no sense to me at all.
I am assuming we are talking about .308 ammo.

Back somewhat on track.. Which would be better out of these two kits - http://www.guns.gb.com/contents/en-uk/p ... g_kit.html or http://www.guns.gb.com/contents/en-uk/p ... s_kit.html ??

If I was to buy a system and it was down to these two I would choose the RCBS.