|
|
Post by rbinar on Apr 9, 2009 7:12:57 GMT -5
8-)Lately I have decided to post one target a week to encourage discussion. This week's target is another 40 caliber ring out target. Since I have a couple of 40 caliber rifles I'll work with them and move to 45 in a few weeks.  The theme here is results may vary. The two groups are shot with the same components except the bullet. On the right is the 195 grain Barnes on the left is the 200 grain SST. A CCIm primer, wonder wad, and 61 grains of Benchmark finish the load. With 5 shot accuracy greater than 3" for the Barnes and the SST at 1.125" for the same 5 shots a decision seems obvious. Indeed if this were the only option it's done. However there is no rule that the Barnes might not shoot a lot better with a load adjustment. Then it becomes a matter of what you want to shoot. If the Barnes is the only acceptable bullet to your requirements then more shooting sessions are in order. If the SST works for your sensibility this near 2700fps load is pretty good. Just musing I'd relate the SST is easier to knurl to size than the Barnes. However if I were more prepared I might make the Barnes just as good a fit. You might want to keep that in mind if you need to knurl either bullet. Also, as normal both these groups have some error built in as a matter of the way I shoot. With 4 shots in .7" and 5 in an 1 1/8" the accuracy of the left side load is pretty good. |
|
|
|
Post by Savage Shooter on Apr 9, 2009 7:30:34 GMT -5
As always, you make it look easy! Good Report.
No doubt as to how obturation as well as initial bullet/bore fit play into these 2 targets.
In the case of these 2 bullets I would say you have some of both going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harley on Apr 9, 2009 8:24:11 GMT -5
You've covered it all, and very nicely detailed, RB.
For myself, I'd slightly change the focus. I'd start with one bullet, a bullet with all the ballistic characteristics I wanted, and exhaust all the variables in developing a load for it. If I was satisfied with the results, I'd quit right there. If not, I'd go to a second bullet, but I wouldn't test two or more bullets at the same time by comparing their perfomances using identical loads.
The bottom line point you made was that you shouldn't expect two different bullets to react the same to a single load.
Harley
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Apr 9, 2009 8:43:59 GMT -5
For hunting purposes I will go with the Barnes and shoot toward the center of the vital area of the deer and let 3" either way be my kill zone.......BOOM.....pass through......dead deer. ;D
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Apr 9, 2009 11:11:11 GMT -5
For hunting purposes I will go with the Barnes and shoot toward the center of the vital area of the deer and let 3" either way be my kill zone.......BOOM.....pass through......dead deer. ;D Doug I suspect that either one of those loads would be about the same from the standpoint of the deer. The SST might be a better choice for those shooting long ranges down power lines or the like. Like Doug, in the dense woods where I hunt it wouldn't matter and I happen to have some of those 195gr Barnes. ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jims on Apr 9, 2009 11:21:39 GMT -5
Nice shooting. I personally have had good luck with the SSTs in .45. Always dead deer in a reasonable distance and I have found them accurate and available but tar12 has convinced me to give the BOs a try. Nice report.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Apr 9, 2009 18:14:57 GMT -5
For hunting purposes I will go with the Barnes and shoot toward the center of the vital area of the deer and let 3" either way be my kill zone.......BOOM.....pass through......dead deer. ;D Doug And here I thought we were getting somewhere. You'd prefer a bullet that won't shoot over one that does because you want a solid on deer? That kind of thinking makes me ill. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave W on Apr 9, 2009 19:04:24 GMT -5
For hunting purposes I will go with the Barnes and shoot toward the center of the vital area of the deer and let 3" either way be my kill zone.......BOOM.....pass through......dead deer. ;D Doug And here I thought we were getting somewhere. You'd prefer a bullet that won't shoot over one that does because you want a solid on deer? That kind of thinking makes me ill. ;D ;D ;D ;D Nice shooting RB. |
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Apr 9, 2009 20:01:30 GMT -5
For hunting purposes I will go with the Barnes and shoot toward the center of the vital area of the deer and let 3" either way be my kill zone.......BOOM.....pass through......dead deer. ;D Doug And here I thought we were getting somewhere. You'd prefer a bullet that won't shoot over one that does because you want a solid on deer? That kind of thinking makes me ill. I am sitting here just laughing out loud at your response RB. My wife is wondering why I am laughing so loudly. I honestly agree with whoever said that a bullet choice is so critical that a shooter should first choose the type of bullet that fits his desires and hunting style and then attempt to find an accurate load for it. However I also agree with Gail McMillan or whoever said that the only interesting rifle is an accurate one and I would apply that to bullets also. Don't start throwing up on me yet Ricky Bibby. The intention of my post wasn't to make you ill. But I would point out that sometimes we tend to worship accuracy as shooters when there are many other factors just as critical when it comes to shooting at game, if that is indeed the goal. For bench rest shooters accuracy reigns supreme. For me as a hunter I am in search of a a load that I can find confidence in at 250 yards and less because 90% of my opportunities will be within 100 yards and the chance of me shooting beyond 250 yards at a deer is remote. Consistency and repeatability is exactly what I strive for as a hunter. Dwindling a group down to 1/4" from 1/2" is way down on my priority list of ambitions as a shooter and a hunter. That being said.......if the two loads that were used to shoot those targets were the only two that I had opportunity from which to choose I honestly would choose the SST. But if my choices were not reduced to just two I would continue to work with the all copper bullet because I think I would have more confidence with it in the hunting field. Now....do you feel better?  Doug |
|
|
|
Post by Harley on Apr 9, 2009 21:13:21 GMT -5
Okay, so we have three distinct groupings of Savage ML shooters: 1. Newbies, who want most of all to get on paper consistently; 2. the minute-of-deer people for whom the ML is an efficient hunting tool ; and 3. the people who strive for excellence. Group one shooters who hunt deer are always motivated into becoming at least group two shooters; some group two shooters are satisfied where they are, while others migrate into group three; BUT, I'd bet no group three shooters ever look back. For this last group the rifle is a lot more than a "tool".
Harley
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Apr 9, 2009 21:30:57 GMT -5
Okay, so we have three distinct groupings of Savage ML shooters: 1. Newbies, who want most of all to get on paper consistently; 2. the minute-of-deer people for whom the ML is an efficient hunting tool ; and 3. the people who strive for excellence. Group one shooters who hunt deer are always motivated into becoming at least group two shooters; some group two shooters are satisfied where they are, while others migrate into group three; BUT, I'd bet no group three shooters ever look back. For this last group the rifle is a lot more than a "tool". Harley Would that be implying that those who first choose a bullet that best relates to their prey and hunting environment and then try to develop the most accurate load around it aren't striving for excellence? Doug |
|
|
|
Post by Harley on Apr 9, 2009 23:15:41 GMT -5
No, Doug, the people you describe are in group 3. Look at my reply #2, above. When I said I'd stop "right there" if I was satisfied with the results, I could have been either a group two (satisfied with minute-of-deer) or group three (satisfied only with excellence).
Harley
|
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Apr 10, 2009 4:06:27 GMT -5
Harley, I think you have divided the groups about right.
I will say I am solidly in group 2. At one time I thought being in group 3 was my goal and during that time I had just graduated from group 1. Group 1 and group 3 have many similarities. The main one is expenditures made and expenditures yet to come. Group 2 helps group 1 justify their initial expenses and scratches their heads a little at the expenses of group 3.
I will say being in group 2 has calmed my nerves. I know I will be OK. Now and then a little something new to try. If it doesn't pan out, no hair loss. Groups 1 and 3 are always scratching their heads, losing hair and probably touching their guns more then the women in their lives
As a whole, we are quite a group. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Rick, Ill take the Barnes group after I discounted shots 1,2,4 and 5. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Apr 10, 2009 7:27:45 GMT -5
I think I would fall into group #3 but I wish I was in group #2. It is with this desire that I would say such a silly thing as I would accept a 3" group with a stout bullet over a 1" group with another bullet. I really wish that I could say that with all sincerity but I am eaten up with the Savage-itus.
What began as an aspiration to shoot a muzzle-loader that I didn't need to clean after every shot has turned into something that resembles an overwhelming and dominating monster. For instance, I am awaiting a $2500 custom made Swinglock muzzle-loader, I am painting my old Savage tupperware stock and have bought a new scope for it selling my other scope, just got a new 50 caliber barrel installed on the same rig and am experimenting with new loads out to 250 yards and at the same time trying to persuade Rick Bibby to sell me one of his 45 caliber barrels so that I can find an action and stock to put it on. ( I guess I better not say anything else to make him ill ;D). Where does this madness end???
I was being sincere when I typed that I don't really have aspiration to reduce a 1/2" into a 1/4" group at 100 yards but I will spend hours upon hours to get a 5" group down to a 3" at 200 yards. Someone in another thread said "Are we reading way too much into this??" I think that once we are bitten by the bug we do begin to scrutinize everything to exercise our minds. Is that good or bad? You will have to decide that for yourselves but I think that Wilmsmyer makes a valid point. Sometimes it is ok to be satisfied with good enough so that you can focus on other things. I myself often go to bed and dream about this stuff. Pretty sick huh?
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by Harley on Apr 10, 2009 7:40:07 GMT -5
Good points made, Wilms.
Doug, you have me LOL, mainly, I think, from relief that I'm not alone. I've had to give up amphetamines AND glue-sniffing to pursue this thing with the Savage.
Harley
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2009 7:50:38 GMT -5
Doug, I too find myself going to extremes with this smokeless thing, but i think i found my solution with the barrel switch and all the other mods on the savage. its nice to know I now have a rifle capable of good accuracy, its up to the shooter now...Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Apr 10, 2009 9:23:18 GMT -5
Group 2 here, at least during hunting season with occasional ventures into group 3 on range days. At least it keeps us off of the streets and out of the bars.  |
|
|
|
Post by jims on Apr 10, 2009 10:12:34 GMT -5
Savage-itus can be an addicting and expensive disease but I find it and its followers interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave d. on Apr 10, 2009 15:28:58 GMT -5
:)rb it looks like that .40 is ready to go to one happy camper.barnes bullets are tough to shoot out of the .40 but shoot lights out out of the .45.nice shootin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Apr 10, 2009 16:36:40 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I started out in the #3 group with little hair and now have even less  My gun is still a #2 groupie with occasional bursts of granduer ;D. I was on my way to being in the solid #3 when I darn near blew up my new barrel  Oh, by the way, the damaged barrel was subsequently found. Penny called me today from Pac-Nor and told me the repaired (3" shorter barrel) was shipped yesterday. So, hopefully, sometime next week I will be back shooting a slightly shorter .45. Oh, well, "Fece' Occur!" Richard |
|
|
|
Post by Harley on Apr 10, 2009 16:42:16 GMT -5
So, you'll have a one of a kind, Richard. I'm betting you will be at no disadvantage and will enjoy a better balanced rifle because of it.
Harley
|
|
|
|
Post by dave d. on Apr 10, 2009 17:34:42 GMT -5
:)richard how long is the barrel going to finish up at.it's funny i was going to pm you today to see what happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Apr 10, 2009 19:48:47 GMT -5
Don't start throwing up on me yet Ricky Bibby. The intention of my post wasn't to make you ill. But I would point out that sometimes we tend to worship accuracy as shooters when there are many other factors just as critical when it comes to shooting at game, if that is indeed the goal. For bench rest shooters accuracy reigns supreme. For me as a hunter I am in search of a a load that I can find confidence in at 250 yards and less because 90% of my opportunities will be within 100 yards and the chance of me shooting beyond 250 yards at a deer is remote.
That being said.......if the two loads that were used to shoot those targets were the only two that I had opportunity from which to choose I honestly would choose the SST. But if my choices were not reduced to just two I would continue to work with the all copper bullet because I think I would have more confidence with it in the hunting field.
Now....do you feel better?
Doug Well that depends. On the points of accuracy I agree. Not many people are like me. That is: they're not able to devote as much time, money, and energy to their hobby as they wish. I guess there are some perks to being retired. It would be unfair of me to expect others to have the same accuracy standard as me. It all comes down to what works for you. On the bullet however you miss my point. The Barnes bullet to me is near junk. I'd rather shoot almost anything else at deer. Still my disliking is based on narrow differences over another bullet. So over time when a bullet discussion occurs a yen and yang situation occurs. Everyone has to agree there is good, and bad, in all opinion bullets. I can hear you laughing louder even now. What can I say? Randy Barnes said I'm a nut. I tried but couldn't find any evidence to refute that. He was less offended when I said the X bullet was the best elk bullet ever. |
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Apr 10, 2009 19:55:08 GMT -5
:)rb it looks like that .40 is ready to go to one happy camper.barnes bullets are tough to shoot out of the .40 but shoot lights out out of the .45.nice shootin. [/size] [glow=red,2,300]Thanks Dave. I think they will shoot a lot better if I pound them harder but I don't want to get pressures up to where vents wear quickly.[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by Dave W on Apr 10, 2009 19:58:29 GMT -5
Can't speak for others but you have cracked me up twice on this thread. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by rexxer on Apr 10, 2009 20:01:44 GMT -5
Rb- You stated both bullets were shot with the same powder load but I didn't read anything about ram rod force seating the bullet.I know you seem to lean toward the loose side and this might be some of your problem shooting the Barnes. If I had my mind set on shooting the Barnes I would increase bullet dia, before changing anything else. I'm guessing but I think the copper bullets are going to need a tighter fit because of less obturation. I will test this theory in a few weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Apr 10, 2009 20:22:47 GMT -5
david d ..............I marked the barrel to be cut at 3" from the breech. Yes, I actually put a saw cut. So the 26" barrel will shorten to 23 " breech face to muzzle. What do you think?  While the velocity might suffer some, I don't believe it should affect accuracy. If anything, the shorter barrel will be stiffer with less vibration. In short range benchrest, most barrels are cut at 21 3/4". Someone along the way found this to be about the best length??? Richard |
|
|
|
Post by dave d. on Apr 10, 2009 20:53:12 GMT -5
:)richard try 50grs of 4227 and i bet it will shoot to 2600fps with a 200gr bullet in your semi short barrel.i've shot this load with very good accuracy.give it a try and let me know what you come up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by jims on Apr 10, 2009 21:08:02 GMT -5
Richard: You are making me feel better about my barrel which is now at 22 inches, just about optimum perhaps. The test will be in the shooting.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Apr 10, 2009 22:49:24 GMT -5
Rb- You stated both bullets were shot with the same powder load but I didn't read anything about ram rod force seating the bullet.I know you seem to lean toward the loose side and this might be some of your problem shooting the Barnes. If I had my mind set on shooting the Barnes I would increase bullet dia, before changing anything else. I'm guessing but I think the copper bullets are going to need a tighter fit because of less obturation. I will test this theory in a few weeks. I can't disagree! I don't waste a lot of time trying to make it a super tight bore fit. As seen on the target all the error is vertical meaning ignition has something to do with the group. Not to mention the wide timing string. |
|
My gun is still a #2 groupie with occasional bursts of granduer ;D. I was on my way to being in the solid #3 when I darn near blew up my new barrel 
Oh, by the way, the damaged barrel was subsequently found. Penny called me today from Pac-Nor and told me the repaired (3" shorter barrel) was shipped yesterday. So, hopefully, sometime next week I will be back shooting a slightly shorter .45. Oh, well, "Fece' Occur!"