in2anity wrote:So I take it you're an advocate of opting for something off-the-shelf over the costs and risks associated with attempting a custom build? Question is, when it comes to accuracy, which one wins?
happyhunter wrote:You mean this?
http://www.dpmsinc.com/COMPACT-HUNTER_ep_151-1.html
bladeracer wrote:For example, the Sierra 168gn Matchking has a BC of .462 above 2600fps, but under 2100fps it falls to a BC of .424, and below 1600fps it drops to .405 - and you'll probably not be pushing them much harder than about 1800fps from the 300BLK, about two-thirds the velocity you'd be getting from a .308. It'll be going transonic by about 400m as well. A 150m zero puts it 90mm high at 80m and 200mm low by 200m. It's also down to the "magical" 800ft/lbs by 200m. At the muzzle the 300BLK has the same velocity that the .308 still has at 500m with the same bullet.
in2anity wrote:Very interesting Blade - thanks for this information mate I really appreciate it Nothing like a few facts to ram-home the truth. I'd punch paper at 300m with it, then maybe stretch it out to 500m at Hornsby down the track. Hunting - never past 150m with irons. I might varmint with it though if I experimented with a scope...
Ok how about this then - instead of 300blk, how about use the 7.62x39 action instead of .223? Although then it's technically a wildcat... would it be dangerous running 0.311 projectiles through a .308 barrel (i.e in case I put. factory 7.62x39 ammo through the.308 barrel)?
bladeracer wrote:Really, I'm leaning even more towards simply shooting a .308 at reduced velocities as being the best option
VICHunter wrote:The Remington SPS Tactical might be an option too. Proper heavy barrel, 20" length, almost certainly more accurate than the above. 3.4kg naked.
happyhunter wrote:Yes it is. You can find similar in straight pull.
happyhunter wrote:Long barrel rifles suck. Rifles with short barrels are king. That's my contribution
Gwion wrote:The Rem in 308 is probably better suited for what you want anyway. The 300blk is designed for short range work. Expecting to shoot it past 200 with any success should kind'a be a waste of time in my book.
pete1 wrote:happyhunter wrote:Long barrel rifles suck. Rifles with short barrels are king. That's my contribution
I'll agree with that
in2anity wrote:VICHunter wrote:The Remington SPS Tactical might be an option too. Proper heavy barrel, 20" length, almost certainly more accurate than the above. 3.4kg naked.
Actually there is a 16.5" version already - order no 85538. Pretty much exactly what I'm looking for. Comes in at $1440 from my LGS.
bladeracer wrote:in2anity wrote:VICHunter wrote:The Remington SPS Tactical might be an option too. Proper heavy barrel, 20" length, almost certainly more accurate than the above. 3.4kg naked.
Actually there is a 16.5" version already - order no 85538. Pretty much exactly what I'm looking for. Comes in at $1440 from my LGS.
Except it doesn't have the tight twist rate you keep mentioning. It's a 10-inch twist, 300BLK uses 7-inch twist.
in2anity wrote:BTW does anyone know what brand sight this is?:
This is very similar to the setup I'm aiming for, only I'd prefer a properly dovetailed front sight:
Gamerancher wrote:Yes, as is written on the sight, Redfield. Type / model is International. They are a match grade sight with positive click adjustments for both elevation and windage, made in U.S.A..
Gamerancher wrote: By the way, there is a Remington 16.5" barrelled .300BLK on usedguns today.
Gamerancher wrote:Front sight?
Gamerancher wrote:Come on, bit of tongue in cheek. Damn, I forgot the sarcasm thingy again.
in2anity wrote:BTW does anyone know what brand sight this is?:
pmomd wrote:in2anity wrote:BTW does anyone know what brand sight this is?:
What's the writing on the top there? Looks like branding stuff more than specs?