On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:20:58 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 3/5/2018 3:23 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
Good article

https://ronspomeroutdoors.com/blog/9...artridges-die/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Good read! Find an article about good cartridges that were never born.
I'll bet you have a couple of wildcats in your safe. I had a .240 Gibbs
that would still outperform most of the 6mm crowd and it's an old
cartridge. I sold it, I never could afford the glass it deserved and I
didn't have a 1,000yd range handy or I'd be replacing the barrel at
least once a year. Rifle was the most fun to shoot EVER! But every
cartridge had to be fire-formed and played with so much I only had 30
and each one had a name as well as a number.h

Yeah, that is a good article. It's the first one I've seen in over 40
years that got the story right on the .244/6mm Remington.

One of my buddies had an early one -- the 1:12 twist .244 -- and it
was an outstanding varmint gun. He didn't buy it for deer hunting --
he wasn't shooting 100 grain bullets -- and that twist was ideal for
light varmint bullets.

But Winshester marketed their .243 as a deer rifle that you could also
use for long-range varmints, and it developed a primo reputation with
the heavier bullets that were great out to 400 yards or more.

BTW, my Browning 1885 in .223 had a 1:14 twist. The Weatherby Vanguard
used that same twist. My Browning wouldn't stabilize any bullet I
tried in it over 52 grains, but with the 52-grain Remington factory
varmint load, it grouped better than 1 MOA. Not bad for a
falling-block rifle. And it killed a 55-pound Javelina dead in his
tracks.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/18/2018 12:05 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
BTW, my Browning 1885 in .223 had a 1:14 twist. The Weatherby Vanguard
used that same twist. My Browning wouldn't stabilize any bullet I
tried in it over 52 grains, but with the 52-grain Remington factory
varmint load, it grouped better than 1 MOA. Not bad for a
falling-block rifle. And it killed a 55-pound Javelina dead in his
tracks.


What was Stoner's original twist for the 5.56 NATO? If I remember it
was barely stable by design.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 05:26:43 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 3/18/2018 12:05 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
BTW, my Browning 1885 in .223 had a 1:14 twist. The Weatherby Vanguard
used that same twist. My Browning wouldn't stabilize any bullet I
tried in it over 52 grains, but with the 52-grain Remington factory
varmint load, it grouped better than 1 MOA. Not bad for a
falling-block rifle. And it killed a 55-pound Javelina dead in his
tracks.


What was Stoner's original twist for the 5.56 NATO? If I remember it
was barely stable by design.

The original barrels seem to have been 1:14" as in 1963 the twist rate
was officially changed from 1:14" to 1:12". In 1980, NATO chose a 178
mm (1-in-7") rifling twist rate for the 5.56×45mm NATO.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 05:26:43 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 3/18/2018 12:05 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
BTW, my Browning 1885 in .223 had a 1:14 twist. The Weatherby Vanguard
used that same twist. My Browning wouldn't stabilize any bullet I
tried in it over 52 grains, but with the 52-grain Remington factory
varmint load, it grouped better than 1 MOA. Not bad for a
falling-block rifle. And it killed a 55-pound Javelina dead in his
tracks.


What was Stoner's original twist for the 5.56 NATO? If I remember it
was barely stable by design.

1:14


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:54:09 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 05:26:43 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 3/18/2018 12:05 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
BTW, my Browning 1885 in .223 had a 1:14 twist. The Weatherby Vanguard
used that same twist. My Browning wouldn't stabilize any bullet I
tried in it over 52 grains, but with the 52-grain Remington factory
varmint load, it grouped better than 1 MOA. Not bad for a
falling-block rifle. And it killed a 55-pound Javelina dead in his
tracks.


What was Stoner's original twist for the 5.56 NATO? If I remember it
was barely stable by design.

The original barrels seem to have been 1:14" as in 1963 the twist rate
was officially changed from 1:14" to 1:12". In 1980, NATO chose a 178
mm (1-in-7") rifling twist rate for the 5.56×45mm NATO.

Original bullets were 55gr, current slugs are 69 gr


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 05:26:43 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 3/18/2018 12:05 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
BTW, my Browning 1885 in .223 had a 1:14 twist. The Weatherby Vanguard
used that same twist. My Browning wouldn't stabilize any bullet I
tried in it over 52 grains, but with the 52-grain Remington factory
varmint load, it grouped better than 1 MOA. Not bad for a
falling-block rifle. And it killed a 55-pound Javelina dead in his
tracks.


What was Stoner's original twist for the 5.56 NATO? If I remember it
was barely stable by design.

Wikipedia says it was 1:12, but I don't see a citation for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15

But it sounds about right. They were using 55-grain bullets at that
time.

However, I think the "barely stable by design" idea is an old urban
myth. They just started using longer bullets and the 1:12 twist wasn't
enough to stabilize them beyond 100 yards or so.

A bullet that's marginally stabilized will, typically, start losing
its stability at a shorter range than one that's well-stabilized. I
*think* saw this in action with my old Browning. It was fine with a 60
- 65 grain bullet out to 100 yards, but accuracy went to hell after
that. The 52-grain hollow-point Remingtons I wound up using were good
to at least 200 yards. At the time, I didn't have a longer range to
test them further.

Twist and stability is not a simple subject. You'll see the terms yaw,
nutation, and precession tossed around in the blogs and discussions,
but I'm not confident that many people writing about it really know
what they're talking about. The "overstabilization" issue appears to
have been debunked with empirical testing, but people still talk about
it online.

I dunno. I don't have any place to run tests of my own.

--
Ed Huntress