Or really... a good news, bad news, worse news situation maybe...
Ever had a doc call you on a Sunday night?
I did today.
That's... not generally a good sign shall we say.
So the doc has been reviewing my tests, and called me up to go over them.
So, the good news... sort of...
At first we thought there were two separate masses, one growing out of my thyroid, and one in a neighboring lymph node.
The good news is, there are not two masses, there is just one, and it's growing out of my thyroid. The lymph nodes do not appear to be involved.
The bad news...
Instead of being two 3cm masses, it's one 8cm mass.
That's a bad thing.
The worse news... Although they can't officially say it's cancer until we get the biopsy result; non cancerous lesions don't generally get this large, so it's almost certainly cancer.
Oh and being so large, the cancer is most likely stage 2.
That's a much worse thing.
There is one other piece of good news though; even stage 2 thyroid cancer (at least the most common kinds of it. There are six or so different kinds of thyroid cancer, and only two of them are particularly problematic) has a better than 95% survival rate... in fact, if you are otherwise healthy, and there is no lymph node involvement, the survival rate with proper treatment is essentially 100%.
Even with lymph node involvement, the survival rate is like 94%.
Sooo... yeah... good news, bad news.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Two large nodular masses
Finally, after months of waiting, I had my specialist endocrinologists appointment yesterday.
They took my history and went over it with me, ordered some more blood tests, and then did a physical examination; including a detailed examination of my neck.
I have no idea how I didn't feel or see this before... probably the edema was masking it... but my lower right neck was distended and swollen.
So, he sent me down for an immediate ultrasound; and they found two large nodular masses in my neck; one growing out of my thyroid, and one in the soft tissue next to it... possibly in a lymph node.
It could be any one of multiple forms of cancer; or it could be non cancerous. I'm scheduled for a biopsy in a week and a half.
If it's cancer, there's a good chance it's not as bad as it sounds. Thyroid cancer is one of the easiest cancers to deal with, and most make a rapid and full recovery.
There's also a half dozen non cancerous things it could be, which are actually more likely than cancer.
The mass in the lymph node is actually more worrisome; but again, there's a half dozen non-cancerous things it could be, including just an further otugrowth of whatever it is growing out of my thyroid (the look like separate masses, but they werent' separated by much. They might be two lobes of the same mass).
I'm not freaking out... I'm not even worrying really.. frankly I'm more relieved than anything else. At least now we have something concrete to treat. It's a hell of a lot better than "We have no idea what's wrong with you or why".
Unfortunately, this is going to be very financially difficult. We've got good insurance, but this is going to run several hundred thousand dollars to treat; so we're going to have a lot of out of pocket. Also, likely there will be ongoing costs for medication etc... some of which are quite expensive even with insurance.
On top of the legal and other medical bills... well, let's just say we probably won't be buying the house next year like we were hoping.
All that aside, I'm looking forward to finally being able to do something, and get healthy.
Anyway... it's been a pretty screwed up month... and a pretty screwed up 12 months for that matter...
They took my history and went over it with me, ordered some more blood tests, and then did a physical examination; including a detailed examination of my neck.
I have no idea how I didn't feel or see this before... probably the edema was masking it... but my lower right neck was distended and swollen.
So, he sent me down for an immediate ultrasound; and they found two large nodular masses in my neck; one growing out of my thyroid, and one in the soft tissue next to it... possibly in a lymph node.
It could be any one of multiple forms of cancer; or it could be non cancerous. I'm scheduled for a biopsy in a week and a half.
If it's cancer, there's a good chance it's not as bad as it sounds. Thyroid cancer is one of the easiest cancers to deal with, and most make a rapid and full recovery.
There's also a half dozen non cancerous things it could be, which are actually more likely than cancer.
The mass in the lymph node is actually more worrisome; but again, there's a half dozen non-cancerous things it could be, including just an further otugrowth of whatever it is growing out of my thyroid (the look like separate masses, but they werent' separated by much. They might be two lobes of the same mass).
I'm not freaking out... I'm not even worrying really.. frankly I'm more relieved than anything else. At least now we have something concrete to treat. It's a hell of a lot better than "We have no idea what's wrong with you or why".
Unfortunately, this is going to be very financially difficult. We've got good insurance, but this is going to run several hundred thousand dollars to treat; so we're going to have a lot of out of pocket. Also, likely there will be ongoing costs for medication etc... some of which are quite expensive even with insurance.
On top of the legal and other medical bills... well, let's just say we probably won't be buying the house next year like we were hoping.
All that aside, I'm looking forward to finally being able to do something, and get healthy.
Anyway... it's been a pretty screwed up month... and a pretty screwed up 12 months for that matter...
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The implication of this number...
My good friend over Traction Control posted up the 2010 NICS check numbers here:
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=9540
Just a quick check of the relevant numbers leaves a rather significant implication in ones mind...
There were approximately 14 million approved NICS checks in the U.S. last year (There were about 14 million checks, over 99% of which were proceeds or proceed after delay. less than 1% of NICS checks are denied... actually in most years it's less than .1 percent).
There are approximately 280 million non-prohibited persons over the age of 18 in the United States.
In most states, CCW holders are not required to go through a NICS check. There are at least 2 million of those in the U.S.
Each NICS check can include multiple firearms. There are no good numbers as to the average number of guns sold per transaction, various sources place it somewhere between 1.05 and 1.1... but obviously, it is a number greater than 1(discounting the very small number of checks that involve no firearm being sold, or people claiming their guns from pawn etc...)
That means the absolute minimum number of firearms sold in the U.S. last year is a little more than 14 million; or approximately one out of every 20 people over 18.
Oh and that's almost exactly the same number of guns sold in the U.S. in 2009; again, one for every 20 people over 18.
In fact, in the entire history of the NICS system there have never been less than 8 million approved transactions in a full year.
We can't really estimate how many of those are used guns, vs. new guns; because the firearms industry doesn't report on new gross unit sales, so it doesn't necessarily mean that there are 14 million NEW guns (and of course, no-one knows anything about private sales... But I'd guess it's somewhere around half and half new and used).
...and guns dont expire, go bad, or in general wear out.
Oh and there were 14 billion rounds of ammunition sold in the U.S. last year, to go with those 14 million guns.
Those gun owners who admit to pollsters that they own guns, average 4.4 guns per.
Lets assume that there is a useful life for a gun of 50 years... It's certainly much more than that, but let's set that arbitrary limit.
Somehow, I think the often bandied about number of 240 million guns for 80 million gun owners, is a bit low... I think it's an absolute minimum of about 400 million, and 100 million.
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=9540
Just a quick check of the relevant numbers leaves a rather significant implication in ones mind...
There were approximately 14 million approved NICS checks in the U.S. last year (There were about 14 million checks, over 99% of which were proceeds or proceed after delay. less than 1% of NICS checks are denied... actually in most years it's less than .1 percent).
There are approximately 280 million non-prohibited persons over the age of 18 in the United States.
In most states, CCW holders are not required to go through a NICS check. There are at least 2 million of those in the U.S.
Each NICS check can include multiple firearms. There are no good numbers as to the average number of guns sold per transaction, various sources place it somewhere between 1.05 and 1.1... but obviously, it is a number greater than 1(discounting the very small number of checks that involve no firearm being sold, or people claiming their guns from pawn etc...)
That means the absolute minimum number of firearms sold in the U.S. last year is a little more than 14 million; or approximately one out of every 20 people over 18.
Oh and that's almost exactly the same number of guns sold in the U.S. in 2009; again, one for every 20 people over 18.
In fact, in the entire history of the NICS system there have never been less than 8 million approved transactions in a full year.
We can't really estimate how many of those are used guns, vs. new guns; because the firearms industry doesn't report on new gross unit sales, so it doesn't necessarily mean that there are 14 million NEW guns (and of course, no-one knows anything about private sales... But I'd guess it's somewhere around half and half new and used).
...and guns dont expire, go bad, or in general wear out.
Oh and there were 14 billion rounds of ammunition sold in the U.S. last year, to go with those 14 million guns.
Those gun owners who admit to pollsters that they own guns, average 4.4 guns per.
Lets assume that there is a useful life for a gun of 50 years... It's certainly much more than that, but let's set that arbitrary limit.
Somehow, I think the often bandied about number of 240 million guns for 80 million gun owners, is a bit low... I think it's an absolute minimum of about 400 million, and 100 million.
Monday, January 24, 2011
No one ended up in a jail, hospital, or morgue
So my brothers funeral was an unmitigated success...
Seriously, right now I'm cripplingly sore, exhausted, and drained, from the events of the last two weeks. We got home at 2am last night having been up and on the go for 21 hours, 14 of those travelling between cars and airports and airplanes.
Plus, I'm swollen up like an overfilled waterballoon from only being able to take my lasix intermittently since last wednesday.
I'll have pics and a full writeup later.
Seriously, right now I'm cripplingly sore, exhausted, and drained, from the events of the last two weeks. We got home at 2am last night having been up and on the go for 21 hours, 14 of those travelling between cars and airports and airplanes.
Plus, I'm swollen up like an overfilled waterballoon from only being able to take my lasix intermittently since last wednesday.
I'll have pics and a full writeup later.
Friday, January 21, 2011
What we woke up to
Looks like 4-6" overnight. It's still snowing pretty steadily right now; though they say it should slow down and become intermittent in the next hour or so.
Glad we got a 4x4. I just hope this doesn't effect people coming to the memorial too badly.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
God Bless Grease...
Well, we landed at 1830 local, and managed to get out to our rental (a real SUV with 4wd. 8" of snow coming in overnight) within an hour; then fought our way down 93 to the suburban streets to get to our hotel.
Mel was unhappy with the trip down. MAssachusets drivers... well...
There are SOME good things about going back to Massachusetts though.
Yes, it's a borderline police state, corrupt as all hell, totally unfree, and taxed into penury...
But on the good side, they've got Papa Ginos.
Papa Ginos of course, is the best fast food pizza chain there is. It's actual real, GOOD pizza; unlike every other fast food pizza chain.
Ultrathin crust, crispy and crunchy with fine cornmeal, but still flexible and chewy. Herby savory sauce. Perfectly melting cheese. Crispy thin sliced pepperoni...
Sure, it's a greaseball pizza, and there are certainly a hundred better places to get a pizza around here (most any of the brick oven places);n but it's what fast food pizza SHOULD be.
I just had my first Papa Ginos pizza since 1999, and I missed it so.
Tomorrow, I'm going to have to find a real sub shop for lunch. See if some of my favorites are still open.
Mel was unhappy with the trip down. MAssachusets drivers... well...
There are SOME good things about going back to Massachusetts though.
Yes, it's a borderline police state, corrupt as all hell, totally unfree, and taxed into penury...
But on the good side, they've got Papa Ginos.
Papa Ginos of course, is the best fast food pizza chain there is. It's actual real, GOOD pizza; unlike every other fast food pizza chain.
Ultrathin crust, crispy and crunchy with fine cornmeal, but still flexible and chewy. Herby savory sauce. Perfectly melting cheese. Crispy thin sliced pepperoni...
Sure, it's a greaseball pizza, and there are certainly a hundred better places to get a pizza around here (most any of the brick oven places);n but it's what fast food pizza SHOULD be.
I just had my first Papa Ginos pizza since 1999, and I missed it so.
Tomorrow, I'm going to have to find a real sub shop for lunch. See if some of my favorites are still open.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
A little blog maintenance
So, as y'all know i had to change blog templates, blogroll systems, and commenting systems, a couple months back.
In that time, I lost a bunch of comments (most of them before 2010 actually), and all the contents of my sidebars.
As of right now, I'm trying to fix the sidebars. The new blogger templating system is kinda crackheaded, but I'm working on it.
I fixed the tipjar, and added the most popular post widgets last night (somebody emailed me last night confused that I had taken the tipjar down because he wanted to help me out with my brothers funeral expenses... thanks man... I hadn't taken it down deliberately, just hadn't managed to fix it yet).
I figure I'll at least have the blogroll fixed shortly, followed by the "best of AnarchAngel" post lists.
In that time, I lost a bunch of comments (most of them before 2010 actually), and all the contents of my sidebars.
As of right now, I'm trying to fix the sidebars. The new blogger templating system is kinda crackheaded, but I'm working on it.
I fixed the tipjar, and added the most popular post widgets last night (somebody emailed me last night confused that I had taken the tipjar down because he wanted to help me out with my brothers funeral expenses... thanks man... I hadn't taken it down deliberately, just hadn't managed to fix it yet).
I figure I'll at least have the blogroll fixed shortly, followed by the "best of AnarchAngel" post lists.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Flying Out
So... good news bad news situation.
Bad news first I guess. Let me get the bitching out of the way.
Having just dropped literally all my ready cash on Christmas, legal fees, and medical bills; I had to pawn a bunch of guns just to get the money together to get out to Boston for my brothers memorial service, and the scattering of his ashes.
I'll be fine in a few weeks, it's just the timing of it.
To compound that, I haven't slept more than two hours uninterrupted since a couple days after Christmas; and not more than six hours in any 24 hour period. There are a number of reasons for this of course, including traveling to Canada and back, getting used to the CPAP machine, the edema (and the diuretics to deal with the edema which make me pee constantly) and of course for the last 8 days, my brother dying.
I'm actually trying to utterly exhaust myself right now. I didn't manage to sleep at all last night, so I decided to stay up straight through, and try to get to bed early tonight, so I can get some good sleep, wake up early, and then get some sleep tomorrow night, before we have to get up and go to the airport.
This has apparently weakened my immune system somewhat; and I'm feeling quite ill, with bad head and chest congestion, nausea, swelling and soreness of the joints, and a fever.
...And we need to get on a plane at 6:30 Thursday morning, which means leaving here around 3:30am; to connect to Denver with a four hour layover, so we can fly into Boston by Thursday night (at least we'll be getting in at a reasonable time... about 12 hours after we leave our house).
Oh, and somehow in the last week or so I managed to put a hairline fracture in my right middle finger. It's swollen and quite painful, and will be for a while.... and I don't remember doing it at all, just waking up one morning with it in screaming pain.
I'm really hoping that a little sleep will cure the feeling ill bit... otherwise this is going to be a much more unpleasant week than it already has been.
Oh and of course, I won't be able to take my furosemide all day Thursday, or my evening dose on Wednesday night, since I'm going to be sealed in a tiny aluminum tube for 8 hours, and I can't really stomach getting up to use the toilet every 20 minutes.
Of course that means by the end of the day Thursday, my edema is going to be out of control; and combined with the pressurization changes I'm going to be swollen up like an overfilled hot water bottle.
Oh and of course, to do all that, I'm going to have the privilege and joy of willfully disarming myself, then subjecting myself to the tender mercies of the TSA.
Joy.
Alright, bitching done...
So, the good news.
My brothers memorial is in my home town of Milton Massachusetts; which means we will be going back to my home town, which is where he wanted to go.
Mel has never seen my home town, nor met most of my family. The circumstances are horrible, but she'll finally get to meet most of the family, including my father.
For that matter, I'LL be seeing family I haven't seen in years; and I'll get to see a lot of old friends, who will be coming out to pay their respects.
Other than my mother, my brother, my grandmother for a couple days in 2004 (when she came to AZ to help my mother), and my father and my uncle David for a few hours in 2005 (when I flew in for my HS reunion); I haven't seen any of my family since early 2000. Other than my HS reunion, I haven't seen any of my Boston friends in that same time.
10 years... man it goes by quick.
Also good, we got an amazing deal on tickets, a hotel, and the rental car.
Funny thing... the lowest quoted far for the day was $738 per seat, including fees taxes etc. The hotel was going to be $96 a night for four nights. the total was going to be just about $1900.
Frankly, I didn't have it, and there was no way I was going to be able to get it in time. We were actually looking at not being able to go; however, we looked at the combo package flight and hotel fares, in the hopes that we might save a couple hundred bucks, and be able to swing it.
The difference was incredible. When we booked the ticket with a four night hotel stay through Travelocity, we got both the $400 hotel room, and the exact same flight they were going to charge us $738 for... for $493 per person.
I honestly don't know how that works exactly, but from now on I'm going to be checking the combo fares whether I need a hotel or not.
So... anybody feel like giving me a few thousand United air miles so I can try to wangle an upgrade... economy seats are 18" wide, and my pelvis (just the bone, never mind the muscle and fat)... isn't?
Just kidding folks, we're alright with the way things are going to be. It's going to be uncomfortable no matter what we do, and I'm not going to inconvenience anyone else with this.
Bad news first I guess. Let me get the bitching out of the way.
Having just dropped literally all my ready cash on Christmas, legal fees, and medical bills; I had to pawn a bunch of guns just to get the money together to get out to Boston for my brothers memorial service, and the scattering of his ashes.
I'll be fine in a few weeks, it's just the timing of it.
To compound that, I haven't slept more than two hours uninterrupted since a couple days after Christmas; and not more than six hours in any 24 hour period. There are a number of reasons for this of course, including traveling to Canada and back, getting used to the CPAP machine, the edema (and the diuretics to deal with the edema which make me pee constantly) and of course for the last 8 days, my brother dying.
I'm actually trying to utterly exhaust myself right now. I didn't manage to sleep at all last night, so I decided to stay up straight through, and try to get to bed early tonight, so I can get some good sleep, wake up early, and then get some sleep tomorrow night, before we have to get up and go to the airport.
This has apparently weakened my immune system somewhat; and I'm feeling quite ill, with bad head and chest congestion, nausea, swelling and soreness of the joints, and a fever.
...And we need to get on a plane at 6:30 Thursday morning, which means leaving here around 3:30am; to connect to Denver with a four hour layover, so we can fly into Boston by Thursday night (at least we'll be getting in at a reasonable time... about 12 hours after we leave our house).
Oh, and somehow in the last week or so I managed to put a hairline fracture in my right middle finger. It's swollen and quite painful, and will be for a while.... and I don't remember doing it at all, just waking up one morning with it in screaming pain.
I'm really hoping that a little sleep will cure the feeling ill bit... otherwise this is going to be a much more unpleasant week than it already has been.
Oh and of course, I won't be able to take my furosemide all day Thursday, or my evening dose on Wednesday night, since I'm going to be sealed in a tiny aluminum tube for 8 hours, and I can't really stomach getting up to use the toilet every 20 minutes.
Of course that means by the end of the day Thursday, my edema is going to be out of control; and combined with the pressurization changes I'm going to be swollen up like an overfilled hot water bottle.
Oh and of course, to do all that, I'm going to have the privilege and joy of willfully disarming myself, then subjecting myself to the tender mercies of the TSA.
Joy.
Alright, bitching done...
So, the good news.
My brothers memorial is in my home town of Milton Massachusetts; which means we will be going back to my home town, which is where he wanted to go.
Mel has never seen my home town, nor met most of my family. The circumstances are horrible, but she'll finally get to meet most of the family, including my father.
For that matter, I'LL be seeing family I haven't seen in years; and I'll get to see a lot of old friends, who will be coming out to pay their respects.
Other than my mother, my brother, my grandmother for a couple days in 2004 (when she came to AZ to help my mother), and my father and my uncle David for a few hours in 2005 (when I flew in for my HS reunion); I haven't seen any of my family since early 2000. Other than my HS reunion, I haven't seen any of my Boston friends in that same time.
10 years... man it goes by quick.
Also good, we got an amazing deal on tickets, a hotel, and the rental car.
Funny thing... the lowest quoted far for the day was $738 per seat, including fees taxes etc. The hotel was going to be $96 a night for four nights. the total was going to be just about $1900.
Frankly, I didn't have it, and there was no way I was going to be able to get it in time. We were actually looking at not being able to go; however, we looked at the combo package flight and hotel fares, in the hopes that we might save a couple hundred bucks, and be able to swing it.
The difference was incredible. When we booked the ticket with a four night hotel stay through Travelocity, we got both the $400 hotel room, and the exact same flight they were going to charge us $738 for... for $493 per person.
I honestly don't know how that works exactly, but from now on I'm going to be checking the combo fares whether I need a hotel or not.
So... anybody feel like giving me a few thousand United air miles so I can try to wangle an upgrade... economy seats are 18" wide, and my pelvis (just the bone, never mind the muscle and fat)... isn't?
Just kidding folks, we're alright with the way things are going to be. It's going to be uncomfortable no matter what we do, and I'm not going to inconvenience anyone else with this.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Memorial for Robert Emmet Dinsmore, 1979-2011
My brother, Robert Emmet Dinsmore, died in Phoenix Arizona, Sunday the 9th of January, 2011.
A native of Milton Massachusetts, who lived in the Boston area most of his life; Rob was just 31 years old.
Rob was survived by his daughter Shelby (age 8) in Montana, his brother Christopher (of Idaho), his mother Jane (of Arizona), his father Christopher (of Massachusetts), and a large and loving extended family in Massachusetts, Florida, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.
In his life Rob was a skilled cook (he hated chefs, but loved cooking); having worked at many restaurants over the years, as sous chef, chef de partie, and line cook. He loved the restaurant business, eventually rising to manage several restaurant kitchens, restaurants, and bars.
He loved all sports, all his life, but none more than baseball. A lifelong Red Sox fan, Celtics fan and Patriots fan; he had an unusual skill in sports trivia, and statistics.
It seemed he lived his life by the ideal "No better friend, no worse enemy"... a value instilled in him by a family he was very close with growing up.
Rob spent his final years caring for his mother, who is terminally ill; while battling worsening illness himself.
Robs final remains will be returned to the earth, in a private family only ceremony; his ashes to be scattered in his favorite place on earth, Lake Winnepesaukee New Hampshire.
A memorial service for relatives and friends will be held Friday January 21st, 2pm til 4pm; at Dolan Funeral home, Milton Massachusetts; followed by a memorial reception at the Villa Rosa in Quincy, MA.
In lieu of flowers, the family asks donations be made to the Boston Red Sox charitable foundation, or the St. Vincent De Paul society.
Friday, January 14, 2011
The Thousand Yard Conspiracy - Part 4: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's SUPER Magnum
"I want to drive a Berger 210 at 3200 ft/sec --HTRN on "The Guncounter" forums"
For over two years now, I've been working on a long range shooting project, that I've called "The Thousand Yard Conspiracy". Unfortunately, the completion of this project has delayed long past our original date of April 2009... it being January 2011 as I write this. It's been over a year since I addressed the project on my blog at all, because life has... as it is wont to do... made it very clear, that it has other plans for us.
However, this year I am going to boomershoot no matter what, so I took this as an opportune time to restart the series
... and restart the project as a whole (though my main custom gun won't be ready in time for Boomershoot this year).
The point of "the thousand yard conspiracy" is to build a full custom, absolute class of the world, 1000 yard+ capable, field target, and long range tactical competition rifle, with glass, and all the ancillary gear for shooting accurately at that range.
As part of the project, I have written (and in some cases not yet publiched) posts about rifles, actions, stocks, hard parts, optics, shooting acessories, shooting benches, ballistics, chambering selection... any number of topics related to long range shooting.
As I restart the series, I'm going to republish the first few articles that I already put up; then I'm going to move on, to finishing the remaining partially completed posts, and publishing those; until we have finally completed my custom rifle, acquired all the gear, and successfully shot at both boomershoot (now, most likely two different boomershoots), and at 1000 yards (since boomershoot only reaches out to 700.
In part one, and part two of this series, I planned out the basic design of the rifle, chose the action, and selected a chambering.
In part 3, we talked about how to build up a slightly less capable rifle, but one that would still reach out to 1000 yards; and do it for as little as 1/4 the cost of my high end custom.
We also talked quite a bit in all three parts, about selecting a chambering for long range shooting. Part two was entirely about choosing between the .300winmag, and the .300wsm; and in the first sidebar post, we talked about why one would choose .308 or .300wm over .30-06, a superficially similar cartridge.
I chose .300 Winchester magnum for my custom gun (for various reasons as I describe in those posts); but selected .308 Winchester for our economy gun in "going long for cheap"... basically entirely because it is cheaper than the winmag (and in fact had the winmag as the number two option).
Since then, a lot of folks have asked me why I didn't choose one of the even larger magnum chamberings out there, to get even better thousand yard performance... And from day one, people have asked me why I didn't choose the .300wsm (which can be slightly more accurate than the .300wm, while having nearly identical ballistics).
There are a lot of folks out there who love the big boomers. Heck, I'm even one of them; and if you are shooting beyond 1200 yards, there isn't much better... Frankly though, I just don't see the value there for 1000 yard and under shooting, in comparison to more traditional magnum choices.
"Super Magnums" ???
In the last few years, there has been a proliferation of new, or revived, magnum chamberings out there; some of which have been termed by shooters and/or their manufacturers/developers as "super magnums", or in the case of Remington, "Ultra Magnums".
Way to go on the hyperbole trumps there Remington.
These magnums have appeared at both ends of the caliber spectrum, with sub 6mm, and sub 7mm bullets being loaded into fat cases at very high pressures; and with 7mm and above bullets at very heavy weights, being loaded into LOOONG and fat cases.
A couple years back I was largely dismissive of the ultra/super/mega/whatever mags under 7mm... And I pretty much still am.
That said, the long and/or, fat cased 6.5s do have their uses... in long range benchrest competition for example.
Right now, the 6.5-284, and other similar 6mm and 6.5mm wildcats; shooting 140gr bullets with ballistic coefficients in the .630+ range (for G1. or .325+ for the more accurate G7 standard) at 2900+fps for standard chamberings, and as much as 3500fps for short "super" or "ultra" magnums and equivalent wildcats; are making world records at 600 and 1000 yards.
Unfortunately, no matter how ballistically efficient they are (and some of them are EXTREMELY efficient, with ballistic coefficients rivaling or exceeding their 7mm and above 210gr-300gr supermagnum brethren, at even higher velocities); the sub 7mm calibers generally just don't have the mass to retain useful amounts of energy, or to resist wind drift, too much beyond 1000 yards.
And while they're great on thin skinned small game and varmints (140gr bullets at 2900+fps will thoroughly redmist a 'yote or anything smaller at any range you can hit 'em); they just aren't great on large, or thick skinned game, because again, they don't have the mass.
Sometimes, in shooting as in hot rodding, there is no replacement for displacement.
So if you're an F class shooter, or you want a 600 yard 'yote laser... sure, go for it. Otherwise, I just don't think they're the right choice, for field and tactical style long range shooting.
Straddling the line between the super 6mm chamberings, and the traditional .300 and above magnums, is the .300wsm. As I said above, it has the potential for slightly more inherent accuracy and precision than the .300wm. This is because it has a low aspect ratio powder column, which burns more consistently; and because it can be fired from a short action rifle, which can be more rigid, and therefore also more consistent. It is also a non belted case, which makes it easier to reload.
I considered all that, and chose to go with the .300 winmag, because I wanted to use some very long, heavy, high bc bullets; and those bullets are a bit too long to reliably mag feed from a .300wsm in a short action, without seating deeper than I want to.
If I couldnt shoot the round using the bullets I wanted in a short action gun, that killed half the advantages for me right there; but left me with the disadvantage of it being much harder to find good factory ammo for if for some reason I can't handload (a foreign hunt, or lost baggage etc...).
I personally believe that any rifle I take out in the field should pass the wal-mart test. If, in an emergency, I can't find suitable ammunition for what I want to do with the gun, at a local superstore, or sporting goods store, in a gun friendly state; then I dont consider that rifle a field gun.
As of today, .300wsm fails the Wal-Mart test. Although you will occasionally find .300wsm loads in non-specialty stores (here in north Idaho the chambering is very popular for elk, so our local wal-marts do carry some of the midweight hunting loads for it for example), you wont find 180, 190, or 210gr match grade loads for it; whereas you generally can with .300wm (in my region, Wal-mart, Bass-Pro, Cabelas, Sportsmans Warehouse, and Outdoor Outfitters all carry suitable long range loads for .300wm)
If you aren't going to shoot 190-210gr bullets however, the .300wsm does seem to have a small, but definite, advantage over the .300wm.
All that said, for the purposes of this discussion, you can generally take the .300wsm as the ballistic twin of the .300wm.
On the other extreme, the superultramegathumpenblitzenboomer magnums are intended to put a high mass bullet on target, at high velocity, with high retained energy, and excellent resistance to wind drift.
Basically, they're for shooting dangerous predators at 300 yards; elk, bear, and ram, at more than 600 yards (and yes, there are people who take Antelope and the like at 1000 yards. I think they're nuts); or two legged varmints at 1000 yards and more... or for use in competitions that approximate those missions.
The tradeoff, is in cost, barrel life, muzzle blast, recoil, and scarcity of ammunition and components (and a fair bit of accuracy and precision at short range in comparison to the 6.5s, but that's a tradeoff for better accuracy and retained energy past 1000 yards).
However, as with their smaller brethren, I question the advantages MOST of these loadings offer over the more traditional choices of 7mm Remington magnum, and .300 Winchester magnum (or the .300wsm); which have been the standard choices of long range shooters, and large game hunters in North America for the last 40 years.
Not that the advantages don't exist of course; but that they aren't as large as many people seem to think they are... and that they really aren't worth the tradeoffs, for the 1000 yard and under tactical or field shooter.
Which brings me back to that quote from HTRN above:
Let's look at some numbers, shall we?
Conveniently for the purposes of this thought experiment; there are five popular 1000 yard cartridges that can in general use the same basic bullets:
All five use the same diameter of bullet; but with different cases, at different capacities and lengths; and of course at different pressures, with different powder burn profiles, creating different velocities and energy levels (Though, as the .300wsm is functionally ballistically identical to the .300wm, we'll take them as one entry to simplify the numbers a bit)
The 210gr Berger VLD (very low drag), is a popular bullet choice for all the magnum loadings we're going to evaluate; so it makes a useful comparison bullet.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that it's also one of the highest performing .308 caliber bullets (all the loadings above, regardless of name, use .308 caliber bullets) available.
I'm including the .308win here as a baseline, non-magnum chambering; and because the .308 is one of the most popular chambering choices in the world, for hunting, target shooting... really everything.
It is a 1000 yard cartridge... essentially because it IS so popular for everything; though most consider it marginal in the 800-1000 yard range, as it gives up a large performance differential to the higher pressure magnum loadings in the same caliber.
I should note, while a 210gr bullet is certainly shootable with a .308win, 210gr is generally considered the absolute maximum weight for a .308; and even then only in the Berger, which is slightly shorter than other 210gr bullets, but still has a higher BC (another reason to choose the Berger 210 as our comparison bullet).
Bullets that heavy are generally considered suboptimal for the size of powder charge the .308 can burn; and also are difficult to get to feed properly in a magazine fed .308 short action rifle. Most .308 loads top out at 180gr or below.
In general, the optimal weight range for the .308 is considered to be 155-180gr; so I'm going to include the optimal choice from that weight range here as well, along with the 210gr load.
We're also going to be doing some cost calculations (in fact I'm going to do them first), to show the real cost of shooting these various loads
Ok, so, down to calculations.
For purposes of this little thought experiment, I'm going to set the baseline barrel length as 28"; as for some of the loadings we will discuss, that is the minimum length for proper performance, and in no case will that length reduce performance.
The standard .308 length match barrel is 24", and most published data will be from that length. With proper powder selection, velocities from a 28" barrel will be approximately 100fps higher than from a 24" barrel.
The magnum chamberings data may be published at 24", 26", or 28" barrel lengths.
In the smaller cased magnums, you gain appx 100fps going from 24" to 26" and an additional 50fps going to 28". There is little improvement seen moving up from 28", and around 34" improvement zeros out completely.
In the larger magnums, with larger capacities using slower powders, you gain appx 100fps for each 2" increase (up to around 30", and then 50fps per inch up to around 34").
From a cost perspective, we're going to use a standard price for primers, bullets, cost per pound of powder, and the price of mounted match grade barrels; so that the only real variables are the cost for brass and powder, and the barrel life (This isn't totally realistic, but it's close enough that the simplification it provides is worth the slight reduction in accuracy. It's really the substantial cost differentials we're trying to see, not the pennies per hundred)
Setting a baseline on price
As with out ballistic baseline, our price baseline will be the .308 Winchester; and for the same reasons. It is about the most popular all around cartridge out there; and certainly one of the most commonly loaded to match grade standards.
At one point I would have said, "the .308 is CERTAINLY, the cartridge most commonly loaded to match grade standards", but at this point I'm not certain if that's true.
As of today, I'm not sure if there's more .308, or more .223/5.56 being loaded to match standards; since the .308 has been eaten away in the shorter range competitions by AR's, and in the long range benchrest ranks by the 6mms and the 6.5s.
At any rate, there is a very broad range of high quality components out there to choose from; with the very best match grade brass (Lapua, Norma, Nosler) running between $0.70 and $0.90 a case, and the only slightly lower quality Winchester brass (which many folks use, because it's so much cheaper, and when prepped properly produces results nearly as good) at around $0.30-$0.40 a case.
As I said above, we're going to standardize the cost of primers per thousand and powder per pound (which is realistic. The optimal powders and primers in question all run around the same price); and all loads are shooting the exact same bullet. We are also standardizing the cost of a barrel at $600 chambered and mounted (which is about the average of all the gunsmiths I've been dealing with on my 1000 yard rifle project).
The bullet and primer for each load will cost $0.45 together (when purchased in bulk lots). The powder will be Hodgdon (several possibilities, all similarly priced), at a cost of $22 per pound in bulk. The barrels will be $600 including mounting.
From a cost perspective the .308win is hands down, the winner; which is just another reason to use it as our baseline. Barrel life, even in a match rifle, frequently exceeds 10,000 rounds; and the most exacting competitors still expect at least a 5000 round life. Powder charges are low (in the 40-45gr range)... Match case life is typically 5 loads (though many will go to 10 or more), with AT LEAST 5 more practice reloads.
All in all, it's a great value.
So to be conservative, that's:
If we presume a 10,000 round match life for a rifle, the lifetime shooting costs look something like this:
A note on the costs of long range shooting
You should note that over $8500 baseline cost of consumables (and the large magnums are going to be WAY more).
A lot of folks complain about the cost of a good match grade rifle and glass, which can start around $1200 each respectively; and go up into the $5000 each range respectively.
That's between $2400 and say $10,000 dollars (including your first $600 barrel).
$2400, or hell even $10k is NOTHING compared to the cost of the ammo you are going to be shooting through the rifle over its life, plus the cost of travel, training, ancillary gear like spotting scopes, rangefinders, and rifle rests...
Spend your money on GOOD equipment, so you won't need to buy it again when it breaks, or buy better when you outgrow it. Don't WASTE your money buying the most expensive thing, but buy for VALUE, not price.
You are going to get more value in long range shooting, buying the right combination of rifle and glass; than trying to shoot for the lowest possible price.
Admittedly, an extra $2000 or $4000 or however much to spend on ammo would be nice, but not at the cost of buying a rifle, or a scope, that won't get the job done for you, no matter how much you practice.
Setting a baseline on ballistics
Ok, back to our numbers.
The "standard" match .308 loads for long range shooting, are the Sierra 155gr palma at 2850fps (G7BC .229, G1BC .449), the sierra 168gr match king at 2800fps (G7BC .218 G1BC .427.), and the Sierra 180gr match king at 2700fps (G7-BC .247 G1BC .482).
Remember, all numbers are from a 28" barrel, and are in general, approximately 100-150fps higher than would be seen from a 24" barrel. All loads and velocities are from published sources (either hardcopy or online), producing under 1moa claimed accuracy.
All of these loads listed above (or a reasonable approximation thereof) are available from a relatively major manufacturers as factory loaded ammo... Though few serious competitors would use factory ammo; if only because they want control over every possible factor... but also because some loads can be driven to considerably higher performance without accuracy loss (the 168gr match king is capable of well over 2800fps from a 28" barrel without any pressure problems or loss of accuracy for example. The 155.5gr Palma bullet can be pushed to 2900 out of a 28" barrel without pressure or accuracy issues)
Also popular are their Berger equivalents; but Berger bullets are generally only available as factory ammunition from some small, specialty manufacturers. They are more the province of handloaders.
Berger bullets are expensive compared to many major factory bullets (though not really more than their biggest competitors, Sierra), but along with Lapua (who are even MORE expensive), are generally considered to be among the best possible choices for long range shooting.
The Berger loads for comparison would be the 155.5gr "fullbore" palma bullet at 2850fps (G7BC .247 G1BC .464), the 168gr VLD at 2800fps (G7BC .242 G1BC .473), and the 185gr "long range" at 2700fps (G7BC .283 G1BC .553).
Of all those loads, the best 1000 yard performance is actually just about tied, between the Berger "fulbore' palma, and the Berger 185gr "long range". The Palma load has 6" less drop at 1000 yards, but less retained energy; and the "long range" load gives you about another 100 yards range before dropping subsonic.
I think the best load for comparison purposes here would be the 185gr "long range"; as we are comparing it against other long range (well over 1000 yard capable) cartridges.
Oh and just for comparison, looking at the 210 compared to the most popular factory load out there... Well, look at the numbers:
It must of course be noted, that to achieve this level of performance, a .308win rifle will need to be chambered specifically for the longer bullets (it will need a longer lede and throat), which will make it perform poorly with lighter bullets. Also, it is unlikely you will be able to feed these long and heavy rounds from a short action magazine.
However, if you want to mag feed, or don't have a long throat; both the 180gr "long range" load (which should mag load in most rifles) and the 155.5gr Palma load (which should mag load in ANY .308win) both exhibit nearly the same performance as the 210gr (in fact both have less drop at 1000 yards); and of course vastly superior performance to the 168gr SMK (as in 48" less drop at 1000 yards, with more retained energy).
It's also worth noting, Berger has another 210gr high performance bullet, the 210gr "long range boat tail". This bullet has a different profile, and is slightly shorter, but has a slightly worse BC (G7 .320 vs .323).
This bullet may be a better choice for some rifles, because its profile and slightly deeper seating depth, allow for more reliable feeding, and better performance (or for that matter, ANY safe performance without excessive pressures) from rifles without a long lede and throat.
Ok, baselines done, now it's on to the thumpenblitzenboomers
The .300 winchester magnum, is STILL the most popular choice of chambering for long range shooters in the 1000-1200 yard regime (though others, like the .300wsm are gaining on it rapidly). That is one of several reasons I chose .300wm for my 1000 yard rifle project, and also for the mountain gun I'm building (I've decided to standardize on .308 bullets, for my primary "large" rifles; so as to have fewer different bullets and accessories to buy).
It also means, I've done a ton of research, and there's a huge body of work on load development to draw from; and I'm certainly not going to let that go to waste.
So, using Walt Bergers personal load data (really great people the guys at Berger. Brian Litz and Walt helped me out personally), you can push one of their 210s to just under 2,900fps avg velocity (with an under 25fps standard deviation and under 50fps extreme spread) out of a standard .300wm, with better than 1/2moa accuracy, from a 24" barrel; or just under 3000fps from a 26" barrel.
Walt says you can push it over 3,000 from a 26" barrel, but SDs, extreme spread, and as a result the groups, open up a lot (as much as double actually; though when Walt is seeing .8moa at 1000 yards off bags from a field gun, that's still nothing to sneeze at), and even worse from a 24" barrel (because of the increase in unburned powder, and turbulence) so he doesn't. He also said that going up to 28" only gets you another 50fps from the same loads, with no change in observed accuracy.
To be conservative, let's call it 3000fps from a 28" barrel, with best accuracy (so that we can be fair in comparing to the Lapuas and RUM).
As to maximum length, Walt and Brian both recommend 26" or 28". Going to 34" will get you up to 3200fps; but at that length, unless you use a 1.25" or thicker, cylinder profile barrel, the harmonics are awful, and groups are not worth mentioning. Experience shows that going over 34" produces no useful increase in velocity with any load or powder.
Typical barrel life for a .300wm rifle is somewhere north of 5000 rounds, depending on the load. The loads in question are all around 75gr of powder, and let's say they hit the bottom of the barrel life band. Most get better than that, but let's be stingy. To be fair, let's also round up to 75gr of powder (which is 100% powder capacity with the 210gr bullet).
The brass runs somewhere around $1 to $1.50 for best quality match cases (in bulk), and you have an expected MATCH case life of 5 loads, with a practice life of at least 5 more loads.
So that's $1.50 per case (presuming lapua brass in bulk), $0.45 for the primer and bullet, 75gr of powder (93 loads per pound less wastage) at $22 a pound (lets presume Retumbo, as the best performance per dollar powder, for a 28" barrel... it's a SLOOOOW powder; but Walt Berger says he uses it personally for his best .300wm loads) for $0.24 of powder, and 5000 rounds per $600 barrel (including chambering and mounting); to push 210gr at 3000fps from a 28" barrel.
The .300 lapua is another beast entirely.
That same 210gr bullet from a .300 lapua/.300-338 WILL hit 3200, but it needs a 28" barrel to do it (you go down to about 3100 from a 26" barrel). It also requires a longer, and less rigid action than even the .300wm (never mind the short mags), to reliably mag feed. Oh and then there's that non standard bolt face.
The recoil and muzzle blast are absolutely staggering. I personally think it's worse to shoot than a .50 cal. According to several sources, it takes a 38" barrel to fully burn that powder charge to the point where the muzzle blast isn't insane.
Worse though, is the general cost of shooting it. Virgin cases run $2+ a piece, and then still have to be necked down and fireformed. Each shot is 110gr of powder. The expected case life is just TWO loads for match, and MAYBE another 3 for practice.
The killer is though, the chambering has a typical barrel life of 500 to 1000 rounds.
So that's $2 a case, $0.45 for bullet and primer, 110gr of powder for 63 rounds per pound less wastage at $0.35 a round, and 1000 rounds per $600 barrel; for 210gr at 3200fps.
The .300rum splits the difference between the two.
It will push the same 210gr bullet to 3100fps from a 28" barrel (actually, people load it hotter than that, but that's the published data). Match grade brass runs $1.20-$1.50 (though it's not as good as the match grade .300wm or .338. Give it a couple years and the brassmakers will catch up). The 3100fps load with a 210gr bullet is 100gr of powder.
The expected case life on the RUM is also 5 match rounds, and 10 practice.
The real kicker compared to the Lapua though, is the barrel life. Where the Lapua maxes out at 1000 rounds, RUM shooters are reporting 2000 rounds plus.
I should note, there are guys pushing 110gr compressed loads with the 210gr bullets claiming 3250fps from 28" barrels; but that's going to WELL exceed the maximum pressure limit, and those loads will probably eat barrels just as bad as the Lapua does.
So $1.20 a case, $0.45 bullet and primer, 100gr of powder for 70 rounds per pound less wastage or $0.32 a round, and 2000 rounds per $600 barrel; to push 210gr to 3100fps.
Let us assume a match life for a particular rifle of 10,000 rounds; presuming 2000 rounds a year for five years.
Given this lifetime, let's look at the cost of shooting all three:
Of course, if the ballistic performance justifies it, I suppose it could be worth it...
Let's check those numbers too:
That's pretty cool actually. .300rum almost exactly splits the difference between .300lapua and .300 winmag, for only about 20% more cost.
Given the cost of shooting the Lapua though... It just doesn't make sense.
Honestly though, given the "walmart test", I can't even see justifying the additional cost of the .300rum; excepting that it's not a belted magnum case, and so it's less of a pain to reload.
If you're going to do it, you might as well go all the way...
We've been comparing, relatively standard sized chamberings; and as I said, they don't really seem to make sense in comparison to the .300wm, for the 1000 yard and under shooting mission.
That said, we were deliberately choosing all loads using the same .308 caliber 210gr bullet; and you would expect that to reduce variation somewhat.
What about going for one of the chamberings created for over 1200 yard shooting; and for anti-materiel purposes?
For example, the current popularity king of the super long range chmaberings, is the .338 lapua. It's a purpose built sniping cartridge, designed to perform out past 1200 yards, with sufficient retained energy at 1500 yards to do whatever you might ask of it.
With the .300gr scenars, the .338 will see 2800fps from that same 28" barrel. That's a lot of energy moving down range.
Basically, it's an entirely different class of chambering. Whereas .308 is best out to 800 and is stretching out to 1000, with an absolute max range of about 1200 yards; .338 is really comfortable all the way out to 1500+ yards... though it's performance drops off rapidly past the 1650 yard mark.
When compared against the .300wm, it's a lot closer at 1000 yards than the .308.
The .338 actually has 16" more drop at 1000 yards with 625ftlbs more energy, 16" more drop at 1500 yards with 430 ftlbs more energy, it's got a 350 yard range advantage at 1000ftlbs, and a 150 yard subsonic range advantage, with 288" more drop at its subsonic range, and only sports a 228ftlb energy differential for it.
The numbers show that in fact, the .300wm is somewhat more precise at the same ranges than the .338; though again, the .338 has an energy advantage at all ranges, and has an overall advantage in extreme range.
Also, what the numbers don't reflect is how that big heavy (comparatively speaking) .338 bullet, deals with adverse conditions past 1200 yards... Where really, the .338s realworld advantages outweigh the relatively small numeric advantage. It's just going to kill the badguy better at those ranges. Enough better that it's rapidly becoming the standard for over 1000 yard sniping, across the globe.
The bigger difference though, isn't the extreme range performance... It's the EXTREME COST of shooting the damn thing; plus the EXTREME pain, fatigue, and wear and tear caused by shooting it.
The .338 is just plain big, and still relatively rare. Thus, it's expensive to shoot, and it requires expensive guns to shoot it, and expensive gear to load for it.
Factory match grade loads for the .338 start at around $4 a round, and run to around $9. Virgin cases run $2.50, and bullets run $0.85 each. You're lucky to get 2, maybe 3 reloads for a single case; and it uses a rather large volume of powder, resulting in a barrel life of just 1000 rounds.
So that's $2.50 a case, $0.90 for bullet and primer, 110gr of powder for 63 rounds per pound less wastage at $0.35 a round, and 1000 rounds per $600 barrel.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
And of course, then there's shooting it.
It's loud (louder than a .50bmg) with a truly punishing and fatiguing muzzle blast; and it also has punishing recoil (not as much energy as a .50, but a faster impulse, making the pain sharper).
Seriously, the muzzle blast and report are something you have to experience to believe. Plugs and muffs, and it's still painful; especially with a muzzle brake. It just beats you down sonically, until after 210 rounds, you just want to stop shooting.
The recoil is the same. I have no problem shooting a 24lb bolt action .50bmg for as long as my wallet will hold out. With the .338 lapua...
I can (and have) shoot a .300wm all day long; shooting a couple hundred rounds over the course of say, six or eight hours. 20 rounds of .338 lapua and I won't be able to shoot for a week. 10 rounds is about my limit with a good muzzlebreak, and a thick recoil pad, in a 13+lb gun. Any lighter, without a brake, or with anything less than a limb saver or decelerator... 5 rounds tops.
So... if my mission including shooting at 1200 to 1500 yards, and primarily more than 100 yards... yeah, I'd swallow the pain and the cost and go with a .338; but otherwise no thanks.
Alright... what about dedicated "anti-materiel" chamberings?
Every publicly acknowledged, confirmed, sniper kill at ranges beyond 1250 yards, has been with either a .338 lapua (2707 yards) , or a .50bmg (2657 yards). The longest kill from anything smaller, was 1250 yards (SSgt Jim Gilliland, with an M24 firing 7.62nato)
Oficially, we don't shoot .50bmg sniper rifles at people... they're 'anti-materiel" rifles; used for taking out light vehicles, shooting the doors of bunkers, destroying gas tanks and fuel pumps etc....
... but they're right nifty for killing bad guys from WAAAAAY far away.
So, obviously, the .50 offers some serious long range shooting capabilities. Why not choose a .50?
Well, the ballistics ARE great (G1 model estimate. see my note on G1 vs G7 ballistic estimates below):
Case life is also good, if you've got a tight match grade chamber, and you anneal your brass; with match grade, virgin commercial brass going 3-5 reloads, and another couple times in practice (I know more than a couple guys who reload the same .50 cases 10 times, 5 match, and 5 practice; but they inspect each case carefully with each reload).
Components are not cheap, but aren't as much as one might think; with match grade bullets running about $1.50 to $2 each in bulk, primed cases are also running about $1.50 to $2 a piece in bulk, and with powder loads of 235gr of h50bmg at $22 a pound, that's 28 rounds per pound, for a cost of about $0.79 powder per.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
Frankly, I don't see why someone interested in tactical 1200 yard plus shooting, would bother with the .338; unless they don't like the weight of the .50. It ends up costing the same to shoot, and .50 bmg rifles, while expensive, aren't THAT much more than .338 rifles.Plus the .50 is just more fun to shoot.
If you want a real tackdriver, ok, don't get the .50; but for the extreme range and extreme energy, it walks all over the .338.
That said, there's no point to the things for under 1200 yards; where the .300 class magnums will give you more precision, for far less money, and far less fatigue.
Finally, I want to talk about a highly specialized competitor to the .50bmg; the .408 Chey-Tac.
Now, I've spoken about the .408 unfavorably before. It's not that I dislike the chambering... It's actually one of the most accurate, and most ballisitically efficient chamberings ever developed; I just have my doubts about the company pushing it.
The .408 tries to outdo both the .338 and the .50 in all ways; while simultaneously being softer shooting than either, easier to shoot accurately, and in theory, lower cost.
At least on the accuracy front, it seems to achieve those goals.
The Ballistics of the .408 Chey-Tac are even better than those of the .50bmg at truly extreme ranges, because the bullets are so extremely ballistically efficient. As far as I know, the .408 419gr copper solid has the highest ballistic coefficient of any available bullet in any chambering; with a G1BC of 1.12. No, they don't mass nearly as much as the .50bmg, so retained energy at any given range is less; but the drop differences are substantial:
The .408 is just plain more accurate and precise at any range, than the .50 is, all the way out to subsonic; and it delivers sufficient energy at any range, to be indistinguishable in effect on soft tissue (both are going to tear it up real dam good). Yes, the .50 is going to be a more effective anti-materiel tool; but the .408 is the better snipers weapon.
What about cost though?
Factory ammo costs (if you can find it. There are only three or four small manufacturers loading for it) are pretty comparable to the .50; with factory match grade loads running between $6 and $9 in bulk.
Component cost is certainly high, with cases running about $3.50 each, bullets running around $2, and with 135gr powder charges, for 50 rounds per pound $22 a pound, a powder cost of $0.44 per round.
The barrel life is probably about 2000 rounds (I haven't heard of anyone shooting their .408 through a barrel yet. It's a relatively new chambering, and not particularly popular) and as with the .50 barrels are likely to cost $1000 or so.
Case life is also good, if you've got a tight match grade chamber, and you anneal your brass; with match brass going 3-5 reloads.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
I would say that if you plan on shooting "soft targets", or tactical competitons, at 1200-2200 yards; a rifle in .408 cheytac is the best way to do it, of the three.
But again, given the dramatically higher cost per shot, the higher cost for the rifles, the increased shooter fatigue, the doubled weight; if you're shooting 1200 yards or under, there really is no reason to go with anything bigger than one of the .300 class magnums.
If you're shooting at 1200 yards or less, my recommendation for .300 Winchester Magnum stands firm. It is the best all around choice for tactical shooting in the under 1200 yard mission space.
A note about numbers
For everyone looking at those extreme 3000 yard range numbers for .408 and .50bmg, and thinking "that's just not possible" you're right, it isn't.
These are numbers out of the JBM ballistic calculator (widely considered the best in the business), using the industry standard G! ballistic coefficients and drag models. These are not actual downrange numbers; and as such, at the extreme ranges they're more in the nature of "theory" than reality.
In the real world, ballistic coefficient changes with the velocity of the bullet, and air is never perfect and standard; so the ACTUAL range you're going to see to subsonic, is generally considerably less for these 1500 yard plus cartridges, than the theoretical numbers would suggest.
Anything past about 1500 yards, and a conventional ballistic calculator is going to diverge substantially from reality; especially using the G1 ballistics model. The G7 model is substantially more accurate out to about 2000 yards. Anything beyond that... well...
I was able to run the numbers for the .300 magnums, and the .338 using the more accurate G7 native drag model; as Brian Litz publishes data for all those bullets.
Unfortunately, there are no official published empirically tested G7 numbers for the .408 or the 750gr a-max; only estimates based on modeling and conversion factors.
That said, the G7 estimate is still likely to be more accurate at range than the G1 modeling. I'll re-run the G7 numbers for both here, so you can compare.
.408 CheyTac modeled with G7 estimates:
Even the G7 estimate isn't perfect of course. Real world numbers are still generally a fair bit less than the models ideal would predict.
In the real world, the .338 lapua has a best range to subsonic of right at 1900-2000 yards, under ideal conditions (using the JDM J40 profile bullet, not the Lapua Scenar as I refer to above. That bullet is not generally commercially available, so I didn't use it).
The .50bmg has a best range to subsonic of about 2100-2200 yards under ideal conditions, using the a-max launched at 2800fps from a 34" barrel.
The .408 has a best range to subsonic of about 2200-2300 yards, using the 419gr bullet at 2890fps from a 29" barrel.
Those are using the best possible bullets, at the highest possible velocities, from the longest barrels etc...
For over two years now, I've been working on a long range shooting project, that I've called "The Thousand Yard Conspiracy". Unfortunately, the completion of this project has delayed long past our original date of April 2009... it being January 2011 as I write this. It's been over a year since I addressed the project on my blog at all, because life has... as it is wont to do... made it very clear, that it has other plans for us.
However, this year I am going to boomershoot no matter what, so I took this as an opportune time to restart the series
... and restart the project as a whole (though my main custom gun won't be ready in time for Boomershoot this year).
The point of "the thousand yard conspiracy" is to build a full custom, absolute class of the world, 1000 yard+ capable, field target, and long range tactical competition rifle, with glass, and all the ancillary gear for shooting accurately at that range.
As part of the project, I have written (and in some cases not yet publiched) posts about rifles, actions, stocks, hard parts, optics, shooting acessories, shooting benches, ballistics, chambering selection... any number of topics related to long range shooting.
As I restart the series, I'm going to republish the first few articles that I already put up; then I'm going to move on, to finishing the remaining partially completed posts, and publishing those; until we have finally completed my custom rifle, acquired all the gear, and successfully shot at both boomershoot (now, most likely two different boomershoots), and at 1000 yards (since boomershoot only reaches out to 700.
In part one, and part two of this series, I planned out the basic design of the rifle, chose the action, and selected a chambering.
In part 3, we talked about how to build up a slightly less capable rifle, but one that would still reach out to 1000 yards; and do it for as little as 1/4 the cost of my high end custom.
We also talked quite a bit in all three parts, about selecting a chambering for long range shooting. Part two was entirely about choosing between the .300winmag, and the .300wsm; and in the first sidebar post, we talked about why one would choose .308 or .300wm over .30-06, a superficially similar cartridge.
I chose .300 Winchester magnum for my custom gun (for various reasons as I describe in those posts); but selected .308 Winchester for our economy gun in "going long for cheap"... basically entirely because it is cheaper than the winmag (and in fact had the winmag as the number two option).
Since then, a lot of folks have asked me why I didn't choose one of the even larger magnum chamberings out there, to get even better thousand yard performance... And from day one, people have asked me why I didn't choose the .300wsm (which can be slightly more accurate than the .300wm, while having nearly identical ballistics).
There are a lot of folks out there who love the big boomers. Heck, I'm even one of them; and if you are shooting beyond 1200 yards, there isn't much better... Frankly though, I just don't see the value there for 1000 yard and under shooting, in comparison to more traditional magnum choices.
"Super Magnums" ???
In the last few years, there has been a proliferation of new, or revived, magnum chamberings out there; some of which have been termed by shooters and/or their manufacturers/developers as "super magnums", or in the case of Remington, "Ultra Magnums".
Way to go on the hyperbole trumps there Remington.
These magnums have appeared at both ends of the caliber spectrum, with sub 6mm, and sub 7mm bullets being loaded into fat cases at very high pressures; and with 7mm and above bullets at very heavy weights, being loaded into LOOONG and fat cases.
A couple years back I was largely dismissive of the ultra/super/mega/whatever mags under 7mm... And I pretty much still am.
That said, the long and/or, fat cased 6.5s do have their uses... in long range benchrest competition for example.
Right now, the 6.5-284, and other similar 6mm and 6.5mm wildcats; shooting 140gr bullets with ballistic coefficients in the .630+ range (for G1. or .325+ for the more accurate G7 standard) at 2900+fps for standard chamberings, and as much as 3500fps for short "super" or "ultra" magnums and equivalent wildcats; are making world records at 600 and 1000 yards.
Unfortunately, no matter how ballistically efficient they are (and some of them are EXTREMELY efficient, with ballistic coefficients rivaling or exceeding their 7mm and above 210gr-300gr supermagnum brethren, at even higher velocities); the sub 7mm calibers generally just don't have the mass to retain useful amounts of energy, or to resist wind drift, too much beyond 1000 yards.
And while they're great on thin skinned small game and varmints (140gr bullets at 2900+fps will thoroughly redmist a 'yote or anything smaller at any range you can hit 'em); they just aren't great on large, or thick skinned game, because again, they don't have the mass.
Sometimes, in shooting as in hot rodding, there is no replacement for displacement.
So if you're an F class shooter, or you want a 600 yard 'yote laser... sure, go for it. Otherwise, I just don't think they're the right choice, for field and tactical style long range shooting.
Straddling the line between the super 6mm chamberings, and the traditional .300 and above magnums, is the .300wsm. As I said above, it has the potential for slightly more inherent accuracy and precision than the .300wm. This is because it has a low aspect ratio powder column, which burns more consistently; and because it can be fired from a short action rifle, which can be more rigid, and therefore also more consistent. It is also a non belted case, which makes it easier to reload.
I considered all that, and chose to go with the .300 winmag, because I wanted to use some very long, heavy, high bc bullets; and those bullets are a bit too long to reliably mag feed from a .300wsm in a short action, without seating deeper than I want to.
If I couldnt shoot the round using the bullets I wanted in a short action gun, that killed half the advantages for me right there; but left me with the disadvantage of it being much harder to find good factory ammo for if for some reason I can't handload (a foreign hunt, or lost baggage etc...).
I personally believe that any rifle I take out in the field should pass the wal-mart test. If, in an emergency, I can't find suitable ammunition for what I want to do with the gun, at a local superstore, or sporting goods store, in a gun friendly state; then I dont consider that rifle a field gun.
As of today, .300wsm fails the Wal-Mart test. Although you will occasionally find .300wsm loads in non-specialty stores (here in north Idaho the chambering is very popular for elk, so our local wal-marts do carry some of the midweight hunting loads for it for example), you wont find 180, 190, or 210gr match grade loads for it; whereas you generally can with .300wm (in my region, Wal-mart, Bass-Pro, Cabelas, Sportsmans Warehouse, and Outdoor Outfitters all carry suitable long range loads for .300wm)
If you aren't going to shoot 190-210gr bullets however, the .300wsm does seem to have a small, but definite, advantage over the .300wm.
All that said, for the purposes of this discussion, you can generally take the .300wsm as the ballistic twin of the .300wm.
On the other extreme, the superultramegathumpenblitzenboomer magnums are intended to put a high mass bullet on target, at high velocity, with high retained energy, and excellent resistance to wind drift.
Basically, they're for shooting dangerous predators at 300 yards; elk, bear, and ram, at more than 600 yards (and yes, there are people who take Antelope and the like at 1000 yards. I think they're nuts); or two legged varmints at 1000 yards and more... or for use in competitions that approximate those missions.
The tradeoff, is in cost, barrel life, muzzle blast, recoil, and scarcity of ammunition and components (and a fair bit of accuracy and precision at short range in comparison to the 6.5s, but that's a tradeoff for better accuracy and retained energy past 1000 yards).
However, as with their smaller brethren, I question the advantages MOST of these loadings offer over the more traditional choices of 7mm Remington magnum, and .300 Winchester magnum (or the .300wsm); which have been the standard choices of long range shooters, and large game hunters in North America for the last 40 years.
Not that the advantages don't exist of course; but that they aren't as large as many people seem to think they are... and that they really aren't worth the tradeoffs, for the 1000 yard and under tactical or field shooter.
Which brings me back to that quote from HTRN above:
"I want to drive a Berger 210 at 3200 ft/sec --HTRN"Well, I want to do that to; I just don't think the advantage an extra 200-250fps gives you over a hot .300 winchester magnum, is worth the cost of doing so.
Let's look at some numbers, shall we?
Conveniently for the purposes of this thought experiment; there are five popular 1000 yard cartridges that can in general use the same basic bullets:
- the .308 Winchester (.308win)
- the .300 Winchester magnum (.300wm)
- the .300 Winchester short magnum (.300wsm, the ballistic twin of the .300wm)
- the .300 Remington Ultra Mag (.300 rum)
- the .300-338, which is also known as the .300 lapua magnum (.300 lapua)
All five use the same diameter of bullet; but with different cases, at different capacities and lengths; and of course at different pressures, with different powder burn profiles, creating different velocities and energy levels (Though, as the .300wsm is functionally ballistically identical to the .300wm, we'll take them as one entry to simplify the numbers a bit)
The 210gr Berger VLD (very low drag), is a popular bullet choice for all the magnum loadings we're going to evaluate; so it makes a useful comparison bullet.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that it's also one of the highest performing .308 caliber bullets (all the loadings above, regardless of name, use .308 caliber bullets) available.
I'm including the .308win here as a baseline, non-magnum chambering; and because the .308 is one of the most popular chambering choices in the world, for hunting, target shooting... really everything.
It is a 1000 yard cartridge... essentially because it IS so popular for everything; though most consider it marginal in the 800-1000 yard range, as it gives up a large performance differential to the higher pressure magnum loadings in the same caliber.
I should note, while a 210gr bullet is certainly shootable with a .308win, 210gr is generally considered the absolute maximum weight for a .308; and even then only in the Berger, which is slightly shorter than other 210gr bullets, but still has a higher BC (another reason to choose the Berger 210 as our comparison bullet).
Bullets that heavy are generally considered suboptimal for the size of powder charge the .308 can burn; and also are difficult to get to feed properly in a magazine fed .308 short action rifle. Most .308 loads top out at 180gr or below.
In general, the optimal weight range for the .308 is considered to be 155-180gr; so I'm going to include the optimal choice from that weight range here as well, along with the 210gr load.
We're also going to be doing some cost calculations (in fact I'm going to do them first), to show the real cost of shooting these various loads
Ok, so, down to calculations.
For purposes of this little thought experiment, I'm going to set the baseline barrel length as 28"; as for some of the loadings we will discuss, that is the minimum length for proper performance, and in no case will that length reduce performance.
The standard .308 length match barrel is 24", and most published data will be from that length. With proper powder selection, velocities from a 28" barrel will be approximately 100fps higher than from a 24" barrel.
The magnum chamberings data may be published at 24", 26", or 28" barrel lengths.
In the smaller cased magnums, you gain appx 100fps going from 24" to 26" and an additional 50fps going to 28". There is little improvement seen moving up from 28", and around 34" improvement zeros out completely.
In the larger magnums, with larger capacities using slower powders, you gain appx 100fps for each 2" increase (up to around 30", and then 50fps per inch up to around 34").
From a cost perspective, we're going to use a standard price for primers, bullets, cost per pound of powder, and the price of mounted match grade barrels; so that the only real variables are the cost for brass and powder, and the barrel life (This isn't totally realistic, but it's close enough that the simplification it provides is worth the slight reduction in accuracy. It's really the substantial cost differentials we're trying to see, not the pennies per hundred)
Setting a baseline on price
As with out ballistic baseline, our price baseline will be the .308 Winchester; and for the same reasons. It is about the most popular all around cartridge out there; and certainly one of the most commonly loaded to match grade standards.
At one point I would have said, "the .308 is CERTAINLY, the cartridge most commonly loaded to match grade standards", but at this point I'm not certain if that's true.
As of today, I'm not sure if there's more .308, or more .223/5.56 being loaded to match standards; since the .308 has been eaten away in the shorter range competitions by AR's, and in the long range benchrest ranks by the 6mms and the 6.5s.
At any rate, there is a very broad range of high quality components out there to choose from; with the very best match grade brass (Lapua, Norma, Nosler) running between $0.70 and $0.90 a case, and the only slightly lower quality Winchester brass (which many folks use, because it's so much cheaper, and when prepped properly produces results nearly as good) at around $0.30-$0.40 a case.
As I said above, we're going to standardize the cost of primers per thousand and powder per pound (which is realistic. The optimal powders and primers in question all run around the same price); and all loads are shooting the exact same bullet. We are also standardizing the cost of a barrel at $600 chambered and mounted (which is about the average of all the gunsmiths I've been dealing with on my 1000 yard rifle project).
The bullet and primer for each load will cost $0.45 together (when purchased in bulk lots). The powder will be Hodgdon (several possibilities, all similarly priced), at a cost of $22 per pound in bulk. The barrels will be $600 including mounting.
From a cost perspective the .308win is hands down, the winner; which is just another reason to use it as our baseline. Barrel life, even in a match rifle, frequently exceeds 10,000 rounds; and the most exacting competitors still expect at least a 5000 round life. Powder charges are low (in the 40-45gr range)... Match case life is typically 5 loads (though many will go to 10 or more), with AT LEAST 5 more practice reloads.
All in all, it's a great value.
So to be conservative, that's:
- $0.70 per case (lets presume match brass)
- $0.45 for the primer and bullet
- 45gr of powder (155 loads per pound less wastage) at $22 a pound for $0.14 of powder
- 5,000 rounds per $600 barrel (including chambering and mounting)
If we presume a 10,000 round match life for a rifle, the lifetime shooting costs look something like this:
.308win, 210gr Berger VLD, 10,000 round match life$0.85 a round total cost, for serious match grade shooting... that's a great deal all around.
Total .308win = $8,530
- 2000 cases, $1,400
- 10,000 bullets and primers, $4,500
- 65 pounds of powder, $1,430.
- 2 barrel, $1200.
Per round .308win = $0.85
A note on the costs of long range shooting
You should note that over $8500 baseline cost of consumables (and the large magnums are going to be WAY more).
A lot of folks complain about the cost of a good match grade rifle and glass, which can start around $1200 each respectively; and go up into the $5000 each range respectively.
That's between $2400 and say $10,000 dollars (including your first $600 barrel).
$2400, or hell even $10k is NOTHING compared to the cost of the ammo you are going to be shooting through the rifle over its life, plus the cost of travel, training, ancillary gear like spotting scopes, rangefinders, and rifle rests...
Spend your money on GOOD equipment, so you won't need to buy it again when it breaks, or buy better when you outgrow it. Don't WASTE your money buying the most expensive thing, but buy for VALUE, not price.
You are going to get more value in long range shooting, buying the right combination of rifle and glass; than trying to shoot for the lowest possible price.
Admittedly, an extra $2000 or $4000 or however much to spend on ammo would be nice, but not at the cost of buying a rifle, or a scope, that won't get the job done for you, no matter how much you practice.
Setting a baseline on ballistics
Ok, back to our numbers.
The "standard" match .308 loads for long range shooting, are the Sierra 155gr palma at 2850fps (G7BC .229, G1BC .449), the sierra 168gr match king at 2800fps (G7BC .218 G1BC .427.), and the Sierra 180gr match king at 2700fps (G7-BC .247 G1BC .482).
Remember, all numbers are from a 28" barrel, and are in general, approximately 100-150fps higher than would be seen from a 24" barrel. All loads and velocities are from published sources (either hardcopy or online), producing under 1moa claimed accuracy.
All of these loads listed above (or a reasonable approximation thereof) are available from a relatively major manufacturers as factory loaded ammo... Though few serious competitors would use factory ammo; if only because they want control over every possible factor... but also because some loads can be driven to considerably higher performance without accuracy loss (the 168gr match king is capable of well over 2800fps from a 28" barrel without any pressure problems or loss of accuracy for example. The 155.5gr Palma bullet can be pushed to 2900 out of a 28" barrel without pressure or accuracy issues)
Also popular are their Berger equivalents; but Berger bullets are generally only available as factory ammunition from some small, specialty manufacturers. They are more the province of handloaders.
Berger bullets are expensive compared to many major factory bullets (though not really more than their biggest competitors, Sierra), but along with Lapua (who are even MORE expensive), are generally considered to be among the best possible choices for long range shooting.
The Berger loads for comparison would be the 155.5gr "fullbore" palma bullet at 2850fps (G7BC .247 G1BC .464), the 168gr VLD at 2800fps (G7BC .242 G1BC .473), and the 185gr "long range" at 2700fps (G7BC .283 G1BC .553).
Of all those loads, the best 1000 yard performance is actually just about tied, between the Berger "fulbore' palma, and the Berger 185gr "long range". The Palma load has 6" less drop at 1000 yards, but less retained energy; and the "long range" load gives you about another 100 yards range before dropping subsonic.
I think the best load for comparison purposes here would be the 185gr "long range"; as we are comparing it against other long range (well over 1000 yard capable) cartridges.
.308 win, 185gr Berger "long range"The 210gr VLD performance suffers somewhat, because it can only be driven to about 2550fps from a 28" .308 without exceeding pressure limits. That is below the optimal velocity regime for a bullet of that weight range.
.283 G7-BC (G1BC .553) at 2700fps and a 300yd zero:
2992ftlbs muzzle energy
-301.35" at 1000 yards with 731ftlbs retained energy
-1084.09" at 1500yards, 398ftlbs retained energy
Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 825 yards
Drops subsonic at 1250 yards, with 528.77" of drop and 515 ftlbs of retained energy
.308 win, 210gr Berger VLDHonestly... there isn't that much to distinguish the two loads in performance. The 185gr load has slightly lower drop, but because of the mass, and high ballistic efficiency, the 210gr is within a few inches at any useful range; while carrying more energy, and having a very slightly longer maximum range.
.323 G7-BC (.631 G1-BC) at 2550fps and a 300yd zero:
3029ftlbs muzzle energy
-314.96" at 1000 yards with 873ftlbs retained energy
-1081.77" at 1500yards, 478ftlbs retained energy
Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 900 yards
Drops subsonic at 1275 yards, with 652" of drop and 584 ftlbs of retained energy
Oh and just for comparison, looking at the 210 compared to the most popular factory load out there... Well, look at the numbers:
"Federal Gold Medal Match"In this case, because of its ballistic efficiency, there is no real question whether "light and fast" or "heavy and slow" is the winner. The 210gr Berger outperforms the 168gr SMK in all measures.
168gr Sierra Match King at 2800fps from a 28" barrel
the 210gr Berger has:
100ftlbs more muzzle energy
32" less drop with 430ftlbs more retained energy at 1000 yards
275 yards more range at 1000ftlbs or higher
300 yards more supersonic range, with 220ftlbs more retained energy
It must of course be noted, that to achieve this level of performance, a .308win rifle will need to be chambered specifically for the longer bullets (it will need a longer lede and throat), which will make it perform poorly with lighter bullets. Also, it is unlikely you will be able to feed these long and heavy rounds from a short action magazine.
However, if you want to mag feed, or don't have a long throat; both the 180gr "long range" load (which should mag load in most rifles) and the 155.5gr Palma load (which should mag load in ANY .308win) both exhibit nearly the same performance as the 210gr (in fact both have less drop at 1000 yards); and of course vastly superior performance to the 168gr SMK (as in 48" less drop at 1000 yards, with more retained energy).
It's also worth noting, Berger has another 210gr high performance bullet, the 210gr "long range boat tail". This bullet has a different profile, and is slightly shorter, but has a slightly worse BC (G7 .320 vs .323).
This bullet may be a better choice for some rifles, because its profile and slightly deeper seating depth, allow for more reliable feeding, and better performance (or for that matter, ANY safe performance without excessive pressures) from rifles without a long lede and throat.
Ok, baselines done, now it's on to the thumpenblitzenboomers
The .300 winchester magnum, is STILL the most popular choice of chambering for long range shooters in the 1000-1200 yard regime (though others, like the .300wsm are gaining on it rapidly). That is one of several reasons I chose .300wm for my 1000 yard rifle project, and also for the mountain gun I'm building (I've decided to standardize on .308 bullets, for my primary "large" rifles; so as to have fewer different bullets and accessories to buy).
It also means, I've done a ton of research, and there's a huge body of work on load development to draw from; and I'm certainly not going to let that go to waste.
So, using Walt Bergers personal load data (really great people the guys at Berger. Brian Litz and Walt helped me out personally), you can push one of their 210s to just under 2,900fps avg velocity (with an under 25fps standard deviation and under 50fps extreme spread) out of a standard .300wm, with better than 1/2moa accuracy, from a 24" barrel; or just under 3000fps from a 26" barrel.
Walt says you can push it over 3,000 from a 26" barrel, but SDs, extreme spread, and as a result the groups, open up a lot (as much as double actually; though when Walt is seeing .8moa at 1000 yards off bags from a field gun, that's still nothing to sneeze at), and even worse from a 24" barrel (because of the increase in unburned powder, and turbulence) so he doesn't. He also said that going up to 28" only gets you another 50fps from the same loads, with no change in observed accuracy.
To be conservative, let's call it 3000fps from a 28" barrel, with best accuracy (so that we can be fair in comparing to the Lapuas and RUM).
As to maximum length, Walt and Brian both recommend 26" or 28". Going to 34" will get you up to 3200fps; but at that length, unless you use a 1.25" or thicker, cylinder profile barrel, the harmonics are awful, and groups are not worth mentioning. Experience shows that going over 34" produces no useful increase in velocity with any load or powder.
Typical barrel life for a .300wm rifle is somewhere north of 5000 rounds, depending on the load. The loads in question are all around 75gr of powder, and let's say they hit the bottom of the barrel life band. Most get better than that, but let's be stingy. To be fair, let's also round up to 75gr of powder (which is 100% powder capacity with the 210gr bullet).
The brass runs somewhere around $1 to $1.50 for best quality match cases (in bulk), and you have an expected MATCH case life of 5 loads, with a practice life of at least 5 more loads.
So that's $1.50 per case (presuming lapua brass in bulk), $0.45 for the primer and bullet, 75gr of powder (93 loads per pound less wastage) at $22 a pound (lets presume Retumbo, as the best performance per dollar powder, for a 28" barrel... it's a SLOOOOW powder; but Walt Berger says he uses it personally for his best .300wm loads) for $0.24 of powder, and 5000 rounds per $600 barrel (including chambering and mounting); to push 210gr at 3000fps from a 28" barrel.
The .300 lapua is another beast entirely.
That same 210gr bullet from a .300 lapua/.300-338 WILL hit 3200, but it needs a 28" barrel to do it (you go down to about 3100 from a 26" barrel). It also requires a longer, and less rigid action than even the .300wm (never mind the short mags), to reliably mag feed. Oh and then there's that non standard bolt face.
The recoil and muzzle blast are absolutely staggering. I personally think it's worse to shoot than a .50 cal. According to several sources, it takes a 38" barrel to fully burn that powder charge to the point where the muzzle blast isn't insane.
Worse though, is the general cost of shooting it. Virgin cases run $2+ a piece, and then still have to be necked down and fireformed. Each shot is 110gr of powder. The expected case life is just TWO loads for match, and MAYBE another 3 for practice.
The killer is though, the chambering has a typical barrel life of 500 to 1000 rounds.
So that's $2 a case, $0.45 for bullet and primer, 110gr of powder for 63 rounds per pound less wastage at $0.35 a round, and 1000 rounds per $600 barrel; for 210gr at 3200fps.
The .300rum splits the difference between the two.
It will push the same 210gr bullet to 3100fps from a 28" barrel (actually, people load it hotter than that, but that's the published data). Match grade brass runs $1.20-$1.50 (though it's not as good as the match grade .300wm or .338. Give it a couple years and the brassmakers will catch up). The 3100fps load with a 210gr bullet is 100gr of powder.
The expected case life on the RUM is also 5 match rounds, and 10 practice.
The real kicker compared to the Lapua though, is the barrel life. Where the Lapua maxes out at 1000 rounds, RUM shooters are reporting 2000 rounds plus.
I should note, there are guys pushing 110gr compressed loads with the 210gr bullets claiming 3250fps from 28" barrels; but that's going to WELL exceed the maximum pressure limit, and those loads will probably eat barrels just as bad as the Lapua does.
So $1.20 a case, $0.45 bullet and primer, 100gr of powder for 70 rounds per pound less wastage or $0.32 a round, and 2000 rounds per $600 barrel; to push 210gr to 3100fps.
Let us assume a match life for a particular rifle of 10,000 rounds; presuming 2000 rounds a year for five years.
Given this lifetime, let's look at the cost of shooting all three:
- .300wm: 2000 cases, $3,000. 10,000 bullets and primers, $4,500. 108 pounds of powder, $2,376. 2 barrels, $1,200.
- Total .300wm = $11,076
- .300 lapua: 5000 cases, $10,000. 10,000 bullets and primers, $4,500. 159 pounds of powder, $3,498. 10 barrels, $6,000.
- Total .300 lapua = $23,998
- .300RUM: 2000 cases, $3,000. 10,000 bullets and primers, $4,500. 143 pounds of powder, $3,146. 5 barrels, $3,000.
- Total .300rum = $13,646
Of course, if the ballistic performance justifies it, I suppose it could be worth it...
Let's check those numbers too:
- .300wm, 210gr Berger with .323 G7-BC (.631 G1-BC) at 3000fps and a 300yd zero:
- 4193ftlbs muzzle energy.
- -216.75" at 1000 yards with 1348ftlbs retained energy.
- -724" at 1500yards, 655ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 1225 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 1575 yards, with 840" of drop and 584 ftlbs of retained energy.
- .300 lapua, 210gr Berger with .323 G7-BC (.631 G1-BC) at 3200fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 4771ftlbs muzzle energy.
- -186.74" at 1000 yards with 1596ftlbs retained energy.
- -617" at 1500yards, 802ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 1350 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 1700 yards, with 914.66" of drop and 584ftlbs of retained energy.
- .300rum, 210gr Berger with .323 G7-BC (.631 G1-BC) at 3100fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 4477ftlbs muzzle energy.
- -200.97" at 1000 yards with 1469ftlbs retained energy.
- -667.45" at 1500yards, 726ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 1275 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 1625 yards, with 860" of drop and 584ftlbs of retained energy.
That's pretty cool actually. .300rum almost exactly splits the difference between .300lapua and .300 winmag, for only about 20% more cost.
Given the cost of shooting the Lapua though... It just doesn't make sense.
Honestly though, given the "walmart test", I can't even see justifying the additional cost of the .300rum; excepting that it's not a belted magnum case, and so it's less of a pain to reload.
If you're going to do it, you might as well go all the way...
Which brings us to the REALLY big boys
We've been comparing, relatively standard sized chamberings; and as I said, they don't really seem to make sense in comparison to the .300wm, for the 1000 yard and under shooting mission.
That said, we were deliberately choosing all loads using the same .308 caliber 210gr bullet; and you would expect that to reduce variation somewhat.
What about going for one of the chamberings created for over 1200 yard shooting; and for anti-materiel purposes?
For example, the current popularity king of the super long range chmaberings, is the .338 lapua. It's a purpose built sniping cartridge, designed to perform out past 1200 yards, with sufficient retained energy at 1500 yards to do whatever you might ask of it.
With the .300gr scenars, the .338 will see 2800fps from that same 28" barrel. That's a lot of energy moving down range.
- .338 lapua, 300gr Lapua Scenar with .382 G7-BC (.747 G1-BC) at 2800fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 5218ftlbs muzzle energy (holy!!!!).
- -232.38" at 1000 yards with 1973ftlbs retained energy.
- -740" at 1500yards, 1085ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 1575 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 1725 yards, with 1127.88" of drop and 812ftlbs of retained energy.
Basically, it's an entirely different class of chambering. Whereas .308 is best out to 800 and is stretching out to 1000, with an absolute max range of about 1200 yards; .338 is really comfortable all the way out to 1500+ yards... though it's performance drops off rapidly past the 1650 yard mark.
When compared against the .300wm, it's a lot closer at 1000 yards than the .308.
The .338 actually has 16" more drop at 1000 yards with 625ftlbs more energy, 16" more drop at 1500 yards with 430 ftlbs more energy, it's got a 350 yard range advantage at 1000ftlbs, and a 150 yard subsonic range advantage, with 288" more drop at its subsonic range, and only sports a 228ftlb energy differential for it.
The numbers show that in fact, the .300wm is somewhat more precise at the same ranges than the .338; though again, the .338 has an energy advantage at all ranges, and has an overall advantage in extreme range.
Also, what the numbers don't reflect is how that big heavy (comparatively speaking) .338 bullet, deals with adverse conditions past 1200 yards... Where really, the .338s realworld advantages outweigh the relatively small numeric advantage. It's just going to kill the badguy better at those ranges. Enough better that it's rapidly becoming the standard for over 1000 yard sniping, across the globe.
The bigger difference though, isn't the extreme range performance... It's the EXTREME COST of shooting the damn thing; plus the EXTREME pain, fatigue, and wear and tear caused by shooting it.
The .338 is just plain big, and still relatively rare. Thus, it's expensive to shoot, and it requires expensive guns to shoot it, and expensive gear to load for it.
Factory match grade loads for the .338 start at around $4 a round, and run to around $9. Virgin cases run $2.50, and bullets run $0.85 each. You're lucky to get 2, maybe 3 reloads for a single case; and it uses a rather large volume of powder, resulting in a barrel life of just 1000 rounds.
So that's $2.50 a case, $0.90 for bullet and primer, 110gr of powder for 63 rounds per pound less wastage at $0.35 a round, and 1000 rounds per $600 barrel.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
- .338 lapua: 5000 cases, $12,500. 10,000 bullets and primers, $9,000. 159 pounds of powder, $3,498. 10 barrels, $6,000.
- Total .338 lapua = $30,998
- Cost per shot = $3.10
And of course, then there's shooting it.
It's loud (louder than a .50bmg) with a truly punishing and fatiguing muzzle blast; and it also has punishing recoil (not as much energy as a .50, but a faster impulse, making the pain sharper).
Seriously, the muzzle blast and report are something you have to experience to believe. Plugs and muffs, and it's still painful; especially with a muzzle brake. It just beats you down sonically, until after 210 rounds, you just want to stop shooting.
The recoil is the same. I have no problem shooting a 24lb bolt action .50bmg for as long as my wallet will hold out. With the .338 lapua...
I can (and have) shoot a .300wm all day long; shooting a couple hundred rounds over the course of say, six or eight hours. 20 rounds of .338 lapua and I won't be able to shoot for a week. 10 rounds is about my limit with a good muzzlebreak, and a thick recoil pad, in a 13+lb gun. Any lighter, without a brake, or with anything less than a limb saver or decelerator... 5 rounds tops.
So... if my mission including shooting at 1200 to 1500 yards, and primarily more than 100 yards... yeah, I'd swallow the pain and the cost and go with a .338; but otherwise no thanks.
Every publicly acknowledged, confirmed, sniper kill at ranges beyond 1250 yards, has been with either a .338 lapua (2707 yards) , or a .50bmg (2657 yards). The longest kill from anything smaller, was 1250 yards (SSgt Jim Gilliland, with an M24 firing 7.62nato)
Oficially, we don't shoot .50bmg sniper rifles at people... they're 'anti-materiel" rifles; used for taking out light vehicles, shooting the doors of bunkers, destroying gas tanks and fuel pumps etc....
... but they're right nifty for killing bad guys from WAAAAAY far away.
So, obviously, the .50 offers some serious long range shooting capabilities. Why not choose a .50?
Well, the ballistics ARE great (G1 model estimate. see my note on G1 vs G7 ballistic estimates below):
- .50BMG, 750gr Hornady A-Max with .518 G7-BC (1.050 G1-BC) at 2820fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 13,232ftlbs muzzle energy (Holy!!!! Holy!!!! Holy!!!).
- -201.77" at 1000 yards with 6699ftlbs retained energy.
- -598" at 1500yards, 4581ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 3700 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 3000 yards, with 4352" of drop and 1714ftlbs of retained energy.
Case life is also good, if you've got a tight match grade chamber, and you anneal your brass; with match grade, virgin commercial brass going 3-5 reloads, and another couple times in practice (I know more than a couple guys who reload the same .50 cases 10 times, 5 match, and 5 practice; but they inspect each case carefully with each reload).
Components are not cheap, but aren't as much as one might think; with match grade bullets running about $1.50 to $2 each in bulk, primed cases are also running about $1.50 to $2 a piece in bulk, and with powder loads of 235gr of h50bmg at $22 a pound, that's 28 rounds per pound, for a cost of about $0.79 powder per.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
- .50 BMG: 2000 cases, $4000. 10,000 bullets and primers, $20,000. 357 pounds of powder, $7854. 5 barrels, $5000.
- Total .50bmg = $36,854
- Cost per shot = $3.69
Frankly, I don't see why someone interested in tactical 1200 yard plus shooting, would bother with the .338; unless they don't like the weight of the .50. It ends up costing the same to shoot, and .50 bmg rifles, while expensive, aren't THAT much more than .338 rifles.Plus the .50 is just more fun to shoot.
If you want a real tackdriver, ok, don't get the .50; but for the extreme range and extreme energy, it walks all over the .338.
That said, there's no point to the things for under 1200 yards; where the .300 class magnums will give you more precision, for far less money, and far less fatigue.
The "Specialist"
Finally, I want to talk about a highly specialized competitor to the .50bmg; the .408 Chey-Tac.
Now, I've spoken about the .408 unfavorably before. It's not that I dislike the chambering... It's actually one of the most accurate, and most ballisitically efficient chamberings ever developed; I just have my doubts about the company pushing it.
The .408 tries to outdo both the .338 and the .50 in all ways; while simultaneously being softer shooting than either, easier to shoot accurately, and in theory, lower cost.
At least on the accuracy front, it seems to achieve those goals.
The Ballistics of the .408 Chey-Tac are even better than those of the .50bmg at truly extreme ranges, because the bullets are so extremely ballistically efficient. As far as I know, the .408 419gr copper solid has the highest ballistic coefficient of any available bullet in any chambering; with a G1BC of 1.12. No, they don't mass nearly as much as the .50bmg, so retained energy at any given range is less; but the drop differences are substantial:
- .408 Chey-Tac, 419gr copper solid with .552 G7-BC (1.12 G1-BC) at 2890fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 7764ftlbs muzzle energy.
- -187.57" at 1000 yards with 4143ftlbs retained energy.
- -549" at 1500yards, 2921ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 3100 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 3100 yards, with 3852" of drop and 1000ftlbs of retained energy.
The .408 is just plain more accurate and precise at any range, than the .50 is, all the way out to subsonic; and it delivers sufficient energy at any range, to be indistinguishable in effect on soft tissue (both are going to tear it up real dam good). Yes, the .50 is going to be a more effective anti-materiel tool; but the .408 is the better snipers weapon.
What about cost though?
Factory ammo costs (if you can find it. There are only three or four small manufacturers loading for it) are pretty comparable to the .50; with factory match grade loads running between $6 and $9 in bulk.
Component cost is certainly high, with cases running about $3.50 each, bullets running around $2, and with 135gr powder charges, for 50 rounds per pound $22 a pound, a powder cost of $0.44 per round.
The barrel life is probably about 2000 rounds (I haven't heard of anyone shooting their .408 through a barrel yet. It's a relatively new chambering, and not particularly popular) and as with the .50 barrels are likely to cost $1000 or so.
Case life is also good, if you've got a tight match grade chamber, and you anneal your brass; with match brass going 3-5 reloads.
So for that same 10,000 round match life we get:
- .408 cheytac: 2000 cases, $7,000. 10,000 bullets and primers, $20,000. 200 pounds of powder, $4400 5 barrels, $5000.
- Total .338 lapua = $36,400
- Cost per shot = $3.64
I would say that if you plan on shooting "soft targets", or tactical competitons, at 1200-2200 yards; a rifle in .408 cheytac is the best way to do it, of the three.
But again, given the dramatically higher cost per shot, the higher cost for the rifles, the increased shooter fatigue, the doubled weight; if you're shooting 1200 yards or under, there really is no reason to go with anything bigger than one of the .300 class magnums.
If you're shooting at 1200 yards or less, my recommendation for .300 Winchester Magnum stands firm. It is the best all around choice for tactical shooting in the under 1200 yard mission space.
A note about numbers
For everyone looking at those extreme 3000 yard range numbers for .408 and .50bmg, and thinking "that's just not possible" you're right, it isn't.
These are numbers out of the JBM ballistic calculator (widely considered the best in the business), using the industry standard G! ballistic coefficients and drag models. These are not actual downrange numbers; and as such, at the extreme ranges they're more in the nature of "theory" than reality.
In the real world, ballistic coefficient changes with the velocity of the bullet, and air is never perfect and standard; so the ACTUAL range you're going to see to subsonic, is generally considerably less for these 1500 yard plus cartridges, than the theoretical numbers would suggest.
Anything past about 1500 yards, and a conventional ballistic calculator is going to diverge substantially from reality; especially using the G1 ballistics model. The G7 model is substantially more accurate out to about 2000 yards. Anything beyond that... well...
I was able to run the numbers for the .300 magnums, and the .338 using the more accurate G7 native drag model; as Brian Litz publishes data for all those bullets.
Unfortunately, there are no official published empirically tested G7 numbers for the .408 or the 750gr a-max; only estimates based on modeling and conversion factors.
That said, the G7 estimate is still likely to be more accurate at range than the G1 modeling. I'll re-run the G7 numbers for both here, so you can compare.
.408 CheyTac modeled with G7 estimates:
- .408 Chey-Tac, 419gr copper solid with .552 G7-BC (1.12 G1-BC) at 2890fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 7764ftlbs muzzle energy.
- -188.54" at 1000 yards with 4092ftlbs retained energy.
- -553.4" at 1500yards, 2855ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 2800 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 2550 yards, with 2429" of drop and 1180ftlbs of retained energy.
- .50BMG, 750gr Hornady A-Max with .518 G7-BC (1.050 G1-BC) at 2820fps and a 300 yard zero:
- 13,232ftlbs muzzle energy (Holy!!!! Holy!!!! Holy!!!).
- -202.95" at 1000 yards with 6611ftlbs retained energy.
- -603" at 1500yards, 4450ftlbs retained energy.
- Drops below 1000ftlbs of retained energy at 3400 yards.
- Drops subsonic at 2300 yards, with 2006" of drop and 2143ftlbs of retained energy.
Even the G7 estimate isn't perfect of course. Real world numbers are still generally a fair bit less than the models ideal would predict.
In the real world, the .338 lapua has a best range to subsonic of right at 1900-2000 yards, under ideal conditions (using the JDM J40 profile bullet, not the Lapua Scenar as I refer to above. That bullet is not generally commercially available, so I didn't use it).
The .50bmg has a best range to subsonic of about 2100-2200 yards under ideal conditions, using the a-max launched at 2800fps from a 34" barrel.
The .408 has a best range to subsonic of about 2200-2300 yards, using the 419gr bullet at 2890fps from a 29" barrel.
Those are using the best possible bullets, at the highest possible velocities, from the longest barrels etc...
Thursday, January 13, 2011
This sounds familiar...
In fact, this is oddly reminiscent of the now-too familiar bitching of Chris's co-workers on conference calls:
Executive level indeed...
Being a dot com casualty, I find that I have become indolent, jaded, and, most of all, disillusioned by this 'Blessed' American way of life.
And yet, being that this exodus of economic vitality has left behind a sea of boarded up commercial spaces, overpriced rents, and embittered people in its wake, I find that survival is still a necessity that has persevered.
And so, having been faced with innumerable rejections from job listings that are really not that appealing to begin with, I have outlined a list of criteria that delineate the ideal job for me.
*Salary of at least 150K plus stock options
*2 hour minimum lunch period with bar tab covered by expense account
*Unlimited access to internet during work time
*Being allowed to say, "F**k you" to supervisor and middle managers as necessary without repercussion.
*Taking dumps on company time permissable.
*Embezzlement of company coffers is tolerated to a degree
*Sexual harassment is also tolerated to a degree
*No requirement to stay after 2:00 in the afternoon
*No real work production is required
Well it seems as though I have just described the typical government job. However, a job like this in industry would not be unheard of...particularly at the executive level.
*
Executive level indeed...
An off the cuff shooting bench
I couldn't sleep last night, and I had sketchup open anyway, doing the lathe bench; and the last thing I said in that post was that it would be pretty easy to take this same basic design and make a shooting bench out of it... so what the hell, I did.
Again, sketchup seems to be adding or subtracting random 64ths to my dimensions; as they were even numbers when I laid them down. the top is intended to be 27" wide; the center part of which should be 9". It should be 48" long, 34" high (before you add height adjusting feet to the bottoms of both front legs, and either the center of the back leg, or to both uprights... you can adjust the leg length to suit your preferences), and the straight sections of the the top shown in the plan view should each be 19.5" long, with the angled sections being 9" long and 9" wide.
The primary structure is all 4x4 dimensional lumber milled down to 3", with 3/4" plywood top, shelves, and gussets. All wood joins are glued and screwed (face screwed, pocket screwed, or lag screwed, depending on the join). The benchtop is finished with tempered hardboard, glued and screwed, with thin sheetmetal edging, supplied by drywall corners.
The main structural member, is a T-beam, created by jointing, then gluing and lag screwing three, four foot lengths of 4x4 milled down to 3" (tip: mill to 3-1/8" before gluing up the three across pieces, then run the glueup through your planer after it's dry... presuming you are using a soft resin glue that wont damage your planer of course... to smooth and true up both sides and get down to 3" thickness); with a fourth length of the 3" lumber glued and lag screwed to the center piece, forming the T shape.
In these two views, I have shown only the front plywood gusset, the rear being obscured; but it should be obvious that it is a simple rectangle, extending to the bottom of the lower shelves subframe.
Also the front gusset is shown as ending above the shelf, but this was just for clarity, to show the 3" crossmember between the front legs, underneath the shelf. You could leave it this way, or you could extend the gusset to the bottom of the crossmember, for improved looks, and added rigidity.
In these views it is hidden, but the front benchtop crossmember is one piece, extending the width of the top, and saddle joined over a half lap notch cut in the cross-t section of the front of the T-beam; then glued and screwed.
In these views there are also three frame members you cannot see.
There is a long frame member running from between the rear leg uprights and the bottom of the rear gusset; glued and screwed to the shelf, and lagbolted into the front crossmember, under the front gusset.
There are also two diagonal braces under the benchtop; running from the end of the front upper top supports, back to the T-beam (to which they are pocket screwed), at a 45 degree angle.
Oh, and on the back legs, there are two little shelf cleats, just to keep that back end of that shelf stable. You can make them out of the scrap cutoffs from the 3" stock pretty easily.
You may want to forgo the metal top coaming, and perimeter edge the entire top with thin trim stock (1x2" pine trim board works fine). It will add somewhat to strength and rigidity, plus improve the longevity of the plywood top, while also dramatically improving the looks of the thing.
The dimensions of this bench are 27"x48". It could easily be extended out to as wide as 48", and as long as 72".
If you extend the width of the top beyond 32", I recommend you double the width of the center section to 18" with a six timber wide main beam section, and two timber wide center "t"; and instead of just a diagonal cross brace on each side of the top, run a full perimeter frame on each wing, with a second top crossmember across the point where the cutout begins.
You may also want to run a support brace, from the outer corners of the wings frame, down to the lower crossmember on the front legs; pocket screwing them into the legs at that point. If you do so, I recommend making the front plywood gusset, extend to at least half the width of the bracing frame; for additional rigidity.
Alternately, if you extend all the way out to 42" or 48" you could take vertical members straight down from the wings; making them the primary front legs, and meeting up with the splayed central members, as crossbracing (miter cut the center angled members to meet the vertical face of the legs, and pocket screw them into place.. or even rabbet them or birdsmouth them in). In this configuration, you could add an additional crossmember across the braces if you wanted additional support and rigidity.
Frankly, this is a little overkill structurally. It's going to weigh something like 150lbs as is; but it should be extremely stable, and last until the pine rots.
The question was asked, why use 4x4s, and why mill them down to 3x3?
Good question, and I never did explain it in the last few posts.
You mill the 4x4s down, to get them flat, square, and true; something most dimensional lumber is most definitely NOT from the lumber yard.
It's an old cabinet makers trick for getting clean and relatively cheap framing wood. 4x4s, 4x6's, and 4x8s (if you can find them anymore) are generally pretty decent wood, just ugly, and twisted, bowed, skewed, knotted etc... by milling and resawing them you can get good, even dimensioned wood.
Also, it's very convenient to work with square, evenly dimensioned stock. It makes for good corners, good miters, mice face joins etc...
The problem with using 2x4s is their true dimensions are 1.5"x3.5" and by the time you've got them flat, straight, and true, you're probably below 1.25"x3.25"; which is an awkward dimension, and not particularly strong for primary frame members.
If I were looking to not overbuild here, I would make the primary t-beam and the legs from 4x4 stock milled to 3x3; and then do all the secondary framing with 2x4s milled to 1x3.
Again, sketchup seems to be adding or subtracting random 64ths to my dimensions; as they were even numbers when I laid them down. the top is intended to be 27" wide; the center part of which should be 9". It should be 48" long, 34" high (before you add height adjusting feet to the bottoms of both front legs, and either the center of the back leg, or to both uprights... you can adjust the leg length to suit your preferences), and the straight sections of the the top shown in the plan view should each be 19.5" long, with the angled sections being 9" long and 9" wide.
The primary structure is all 4x4 dimensional lumber milled down to 3", with 3/4" plywood top, shelves, and gussets. All wood joins are glued and screwed (face screwed, pocket screwed, or lag screwed, depending on the join). The benchtop is finished with tempered hardboard, glued and screwed, with thin sheetmetal edging, supplied by drywall corners.
The main structural member, is a T-beam, created by jointing, then gluing and lag screwing three, four foot lengths of 4x4 milled down to 3" (tip: mill to 3-1/8" before gluing up the three across pieces, then run the glueup through your planer after it's dry... presuming you are using a soft resin glue that wont damage your planer of course... to smooth and true up both sides and get down to 3" thickness); with a fourth length of the 3" lumber glued and lag screwed to the center piece, forming the T shape.
In these two views, I have shown only the front plywood gusset, the rear being obscured; but it should be obvious that it is a simple rectangle, extending to the bottom of the lower shelves subframe.
Also the front gusset is shown as ending above the shelf, but this was just for clarity, to show the 3" crossmember between the front legs, underneath the shelf. You could leave it this way, or you could extend the gusset to the bottom of the crossmember, for improved looks, and added rigidity.
In these views it is hidden, but the front benchtop crossmember is one piece, extending the width of the top, and saddle joined over a half lap notch cut in the cross-t section of the front of the T-beam; then glued and screwed.
In these views there are also three frame members you cannot see.
There is a long frame member running from between the rear leg uprights and the bottom of the rear gusset; glued and screwed to the shelf, and lagbolted into the front crossmember, under the front gusset.
There are also two diagonal braces under the benchtop; running from the end of the front upper top supports, back to the T-beam (to which they are pocket screwed), at a 45 degree angle.
Oh, and on the back legs, there are two little shelf cleats, just to keep that back end of that shelf stable. You can make them out of the scrap cutoffs from the 3" stock pretty easily.
You may want to forgo the metal top coaming, and perimeter edge the entire top with thin trim stock (1x2" pine trim board works fine). It will add somewhat to strength and rigidity, plus improve the longevity of the plywood top, while also dramatically improving the looks of the thing.
The dimensions of this bench are 27"x48". It could easily be extended out to as wide as 48", and as long as 72".
If you extend the width of the top beyond 32", I recommend you double the width of the center section to 18" with a six timber wide main beam section, and two timber wide center "t"; and instead of just a diagonal cross brace on each side of the top, run a full perimeter frame on each wing, with a second top crossmember across the point where the cutout begins.
You may also want to run a support brace, from the outer corners of the wings frame, down to the lower crossmember on the front legs; pocket screwing them into the legs at that point. If you do so, I recommend making the front plywood gusset, extend to at least half the width of the bracing frame; for additional rigidity.
Alternately, if you extend all the way out to 42" or 48" you could take vertical members straight down from the wings; making them the primary front legs, and meeting up with the splayed central members, as crossbracing (miter cut the center angled members to meet the vertical face of the legs, and pocket screw them into place.. or even rabbet them or birdsmouth them in). In this configuration, you could add an additional crossmember across the braces if you wanted additional support and rigidity.
Frankly, this is a little overkill structurally. It's going to weigh something like 150lbs as is; but it should be extremely stable, and last until the pine rots.
UPDATE:
The question was asked, why use 4x4s, and why mill them down to 3x3?
Good question, and I never did explain it in the last few posts.
You mill the 4x4s down, to get them flat, square, and true; something most dimensional lumber is most definitely NOT from the lumber yard.
It's an old cabinet makers trick for getting clean and relatively cheap framing wood. 4x4s, 4x6's, and 4x8s (if you can find them anymore) are generally pretty decent wood, just ugly, and twisted, bowed, skewed, knotted etc... by milling and resawing them you can get good, even dimensioned wood.
Also, it's very convenient to work with square, evenly dimensioned stock. It makes for good corners, good miters, mice face joins etc...
The problem with using 2x4s is their true dimensions are 1.5"x3.5" and by the time you've got them flat, straight, and true, you're probably below 1.25"x3.25"; which is an awkward dimension, and not particularly strong for primary frame members.
If I were looking to not overbuild here, I would make the primary t-beam and the legs from 4x4 stock milled to 3x3; and then do all the secondary framing with 2x4s milled to 1x3.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Visualizing the Lathe Bench
So, I got some comments about my lathe workstation idea, saying that people couldn't visualize what I was thinking of.
Well, thanks to the wonderful people at Google, that's easy enough to resolve.
Someone asked for a threeview; but I think reciprocal isometric views, and a face on view (rather than two faces and an isometric) would be more illustrative.
So here's a couple of shots of a quickie sketchup model I did...
first the left iso:
Then the right iso:
And the end face:
Not sure exactly why sketchup added and/or subtracted 1/64th inch to the measurements, because I know they were accurate when I drew them up.
The lighter wood is 4x4 dimensional lumber, milled to 3". The mid tone wood is 3/4" plywood, and the dark wood is tempered hardboard.
I'm not sure whether the center uprights are necessary or not. I'm thinking with the T-Beam for the top, it's probably strong and rigid enough without them. Also, I wouldn't be doing any silly through joinery on the middle shelf. Just a gap around the legs with some edging.... if I even put the legs in at all.
What the drawing doesn't show is the metal top coaming (done with drywall corner probably), shelf edging (probably some premade molding trim strips), bottom framing, or the casters and height adjusting feet.
I left them off for clarity; and because I haven't found exactly what I want to use yet. Same thing for whatever dust and chip collection system I end up rigging (probably one of those big ABS chutes into my shop dust collector).
Also, I need to reduce the height of the legs based on whatever heavy duty locking casters I find, so that the worktop ends up at 40 inches.
Now that I've clarified with a drawing, let's confuse things again.
I'd probably put in another 3" frame member across the bottom center of the upper shelf (between the center legs), and a triangulating crossmember between the leg uprights, crossbolted into the legs and the shelf member, and screwed into the bottom of the plywood end plates.
The end plate is a full structural gusset, glued and screwed into each individual member, for rigidity.
For the drawing, basically because I didn't feel like taking the time to do it, I just show a simple miter and butt join from the top of the outboard legs, to the bottom of the T-Beam. For the real thing, I haven't decided whether I'll rafter cut it, to give a two face join; or cut a corner block and pocket screw through it (thank god for Kreg jigs).
I'll probably put 3" longmembers and crossmembers across the bottom of the outside legs, and from leg to leg, both on the bottom and the top of the base shelf. Then I'll do inside corner bracing on the bottom frame, with a 3" brace, and a 3/4" ply gusset glued and screwed over it; to bolt the casters and feet to. Finally, I'll run two more 3" longmembers, from one the inside edge of the corner brace, across the entire bottom to the other inside edge of the corner brace, on each side... or if I decide to keep the center legs, I'll just run the two long members underneath the legs and screw up through them..
All that will edge the base shelf, keep the center of the base rock solid, add mass, AND make for a seriously rigid frame structure.
If I end up dogboning the bottom shelf, I'll leave the end crossmembers, but move the outer long members inboard to say... an 18" wide center section; then triangulate the frame with outside corner bracing (making a 7" right triangle with diagonal members on all four corners, from the end of the outboard legs, to the long members).
However, I don't think I need to dogbone it. Looking at it drawn up, and given the mass of the thing; possibly including a few bags of lead shot, or sand... I think I can reduce the width of the bottom shelf/splay of the legs, down to 28". Given the lathe is 8" wide (the benchtop it's on is 9" wide) and the toolrest is right on the outside edge of that width, that would only leave 9.5" sticking out further than the tool rest, which should let me work just fine without leaning in...
...and frankly, even at 32" wide that's still only an 11.5" reach; and I've personally got a 14" reach from 90 degrees, elbows straight down from the midline of my body to the center of my fist (add another 5" from the center of my fist to the tips of my fingers). In a normal working stance, I don't think the full width bottom shelf would restrict my movement or force a reach at all, especially with 4" or 6" casters on the thing, so I can get my toes under the frame (somehow, I'm not worried about the frame collapsing and falling on my feet).
Of course, I'm taller than most, with longer arms than most.
Oh and yes, I know this is a ridiculously heavy, and overbuilt design.
That's the point. All up, that's about 96 linear feet of 3" milled 4x4 and most of a sheet of plywood. It should weigh in around 280-300lbs, depending on the total weight of the hardware and fasteners used.
I WANT it to be very heavy to absorb vibration. I want lots of doubled up structure to improve rigidity; but I also want it to be of very slightly elastic elastic wood construction, to better damp out that vibration.
Oh and incidentally, the total cost, including fasteners, would run about $180 if bought from a home despot in my area.
One might also note, that if you took the 32" wide dogbone base I talk about above, graft it to the top T-Beam instead of just the 9" wide benchtop, and run a couple of legs down the outside corners into the base frame; one could make one hell of a rigid, heavy, solid, and ambidextrous shooting bench.
Well, thanks to the wonderful people at Google, that's easy enough to resolve.
Someone asked for a threeview; but I think reciprocal isometric views, and a face on view (rather than two faces and an isometric) would be more illustrative.
So here's a couple of shots of a quickie sketchup model I did...
first the left iso:
Then the right iso:
And the end face:
Not sure exactly why sketchup added and/or subtracted 1/64th inch to the measurements, because I know they were accurate when I drew them up.
The lighter wood is 4x4 dimensional lumber, milled to 3". The mid tone wood is 3/4" plywood, and the dark wood is tempered hardboard.
I'm not sure whether the center uprights are necessary or not. I'm thinking with the T-Beam for the top, it's probably strong and rigid enough without them. Also, I wouldn't be doing any silly through joinery on the middle shelf. Just a gap around the legs with some edging.... if I even put the legs in at all.
What the drawing doesn't show is the metal top coaming (done with drywall corner probably), shelf edging (probably some premade molding trim strips), bottom framing, or the casters and height adjusting feet.
I left them off for clarity; and because I haven't found exactly what I want to use yet. Same thing for whatever dust and chip collection system I end up rigging (probably one of those big ABS chutes into my shop dust collector).
Also, I need to reduce the height of the legs based on whatever heavy duty locking casters I find, so that the worktop ends up at 40 inches.
Now that I've clarified with a drawing, let's confuse things again.
I'd probably put in another 3" frame member across the bottom center of the upper shelf (between the center legs), and a triangulating crossmember between the leg uprights, crossbolted into the legs and the shelf member, and screwed into the bottom of the plywood end plates.
The end plate is a full structural gusset, glued and screwed into each individual member, for rigidity.
For the drawing, basically because I didn't feel like taking the time to do it, I just show a simple miter and butt join from the top of the outboard legs, to the bottom of the T-Beam. For the real thing, I haven't decided whether I'll rafter cut it, to give a two face join; or cut a corner block and pocket screw through it (thank god for Kreg jigs).
I'll probably put 3" longmembers and crossmembers across the bottom of the outside legs, and from leg to leg, both on the bottom and the top of the base shelf. Then I'll do inside corner bracing on the bottom frame, with a 3" brace, and a 3/4" ply gusset glued and screwed over it; to bolt the casters and feet to. Finally, I'll run two more 3" longmembers, from one the inside edge of the corner brace, across the entire bottom to the other inside edge of the corner brace, on each side... or if I decide to keep the center legs, I'll just run the two long members underneath the legs and screw up through them..
All that will edge the base shelf, keep the center of the base rock solid, add mass, AND make for a seriously rigid frame structure.
If I end up dogboning the bottom shelf, I'll leave the end crossmembers, but move the outer long members inboard to say... an 18" wide center section; then triangulate the frame with outside corner bracing (making a 7" right triangle with diagonal members on all four corners, from the end of the outboard legs, to the long members).
However, I don't think I need to dogbone it. Looking at it drawn up, and given the mass of the thing; possibly including a few bags of lead shot, or sand... I think I can reduce the width of the bottom shelf/splay of the legs, down to 28". Given the lathe is 8" wide (the benchtop it's on is 9" wide) and the toolrest is right on the outside edge of that width, that would only leave 9.5" sticking out further than the tool rest, which should let me work just fine without leaning in...
...and frankly, even at 32" wide that's still only an 11.5" reach; and I've personally got a 14" reach from 90 degrees, elbows straight down from the midline of my body to the center of my fist (add another 5" from the center of my fist to the tips of my fingers). In a normal working stance, I don't think the full width bottom shelf would restrict my movement or force a reach at all, especially with 4" or 6" casters on the thing, so I can get my toes under the frame (somehow, I'm not worried about the frame collapsing and falling on my feet).
Of course, I'm taller than most, with longer arms than most.
Oh and yes, I know this is a ridiculously heavy, and overbuilt design.
That's the point. All up, that's about 96 linear feet of 3" milled 4x4 and most of a sheet of plywood. It should weigh in around 280-300lbs, depending on the total weight of the hardware and fasteners used.
I WANT it to be very heavy to absorb vibration. I want lots of doubled up structure to improve rigidity; but I also want it to be of very slightly elastic elastic wood construction, to better damp out that vibration.
Oh and incidentally, the total cost, including fasteners, would run about $180 if bought from a home despot in my area.
One might also note, that if you took the 32" wide dogbone base I talk about above, graft it to the top T-Beam instead of just the 9" wide benchtop, and run a couple of legs down the outside corners into the base frame; one could make one hell of a rigid, heavy, solid, and ambidextrous shooting bench.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Building a lathe workstation
So, I've had this lathe for a few months, but haven't set it up yet:
http://www.woodstockint.com/SHOP-FOX-Shop-Fox-Mini-Wood-Lathe/W1752/
And the extension bed for it:
http://www.woodstockint.com/Extended-Bed-for-W1752-Shop-Fox-Mini-Wood-Lathe/W1753/
The extension bed stretches the distance center to center up to 38" (so I can turn full spindles and table legs, canes, and other long items, in addition to the 15" and under tool handles, pens etc...); and extends the overall length of the lathe to 60".
The manufacturer makes a stand for the lathe without the extension bed, but not for the lathe with it. There are a few sets of lathe legs that can bolt to the lathe bed; but I don't like leaving the bed extender join unsupported.
There are some generic stands out there that are large enough, but they're all sized for much large lathes. Besides, they're really quite expensive (much more than the lathe itself cost), and I don't think any of them are quite what I want. Frankly, I don't think any of the commercial lathe stands are heavy enough, and they're all made of the "wrong" material.
The lathe itself only weighs 140lbs (with the extension. 102lbs without). The commercial lathe stands for smaller lathes are all stamped and bent sheetmetal, with bolted together construction; and most of them on their own weigh less than 60lbs. For a lathe of this size, I'd like to see at least 300lbs weight overall for stability and to damp out vibration. Not only that, but sheetmetal is a poor material for damping, especially when bolted together. Wood or cast Iron are much better choices, being both heavy, and naturally vibration damping. If you have to have sheetmetal, you want it fully boxed out, with welded construction (and if you want to improve it, fill the boxed tubes with foam, sand, or concrete, for more damping).
Since I don't have the capability of making a cast iron stand, and boxing out and welding up a sheetmetal stand is a hell of a lot of trouble and expense; I'm going to go for wood.
Frankly, just about every serious woodturner I know has either a huge, heavy, and expensive cast iron or welded steel stand made specifically for their lathes (usually by the manufacturer of the lathe); or they build their own wood stand. Most guys using smaller lathes (and yes, this is a very small lathe by "serious" standards) build their own.
...plus, I've already GOT a bunch of 4x4s and plywood, in the right sizes, plus all the hardware I need, as leftovers from other projects; cost being a not insignificant factor here.
So, what I'm thinking of, is milling four 6 foot lengths of 4x4 down to 3" wide, flat and true, gluing and lag screwing three of them together across the top and one more as a stringer down the middle creating a T. That will give me a very stable structure to bolt legs and a top into.
Then I'll glue and screw a 3/4" plywood top down over the T, and glue a tempered hardboard surface down over that. Then I'll reinforce the edges of the top with drywall corner bead.
For legs, I'm thinking an A frame style (like a sawhorse only bigger), with three uprights rafter cut at the top to notch into the T truss. I'm thinking about a shelf at the bottom of the a frame gussets (call it 12" below the worktop), and a floor shelf at the bottom of the legs; with heavy duty locking casters on one end, and height adjusting feet at the other, with non-slip pads.
Oh and there is one other major problem I have with most commercial stands: they are all WAY too low.
I'm 6'2", and I like my tool rest to be at 44-48"; which is where my forearms arms are 90 degrees from the elbows out, when standing up straight with my feet shoulder width apart. Most lathe tables, or lathe leg sets, put the tool rest at 38"-44"
The top is going to be 9" wide, and I'm thinking a 28" wide base should be wide enough to be stable, without forcing me to lean too much... but I'm not sure. I may need to dogbone the base shelf, making the end frames 32" wide, and make the center uprights perpendicular members, cutting the center shelf in along the working length of the bed so I can stand closer to the toolrest.
I think I'll put a bracket/upright/holddown for a dust and chip collection system on the backside, and some chisel racks, and layout tool racks; on the front side, in the upper shelf area.
Finally, some hinged or sliding covers over the shelves, to keep out the dust and chips.
So any ideas? criticisms? experience? suggestions? Anything I'm missing? Think I've got the dimensions right? Any cool features I should be thinking of?
So, I got some comments about my lathe workstation idea, saying that people couldn't visualize what I was thinking of.
Well, thanks to the wonderful people at Google, that's easy enough to resolve.
Someone asked for a threeview; but I think reciprocal isometric views, and a face on view (rather than two faces and an isometric) would be more illustrative.
So here's a couple of shots of a quickie sketchup model I did...
first the left iso:
Then the right iso:
And the end face:
Not sure exactly why sketchup added and/or subtracted 1/64th inch to the measurements, because I know they were accurate when I drew them up.
The lighter wood is 4x4 dimensional lumber, milled to 3". The mid tone wood is 3/4" plywood, and the dark wood is tempered hardboard.
I'm not sure whether the center uprights are necessary or not. I'm thinking with the T-Beam for the top, it's probably strong and rigid enough without them. Also, I wouldn't be doing any silly through joinery on the middle shelf. Just a gap around the legs with some edging.... if I even put the legs in at all.
What the drawing doesn't show is the metal top coaming (done with drywall corner probably), shelf edging (probably some premade molding trim strips), bottom framing, or the casters and height adjusting feet.
I left them off for clarity; and because I haven't found exactly what I want to use yet. Same thing for whatever dust and chip collection system I end up rigging (probably one of those big ABS chutes into my shop dust collector).
Also, I need to reduce the height of the legs based on whatever heavy duty locking casters I find, so that the worktop ends up at 40 inches.
Now that I've clarified with a drawing, let's confuse things again.
I'd probably put in another 3" frame member across the bottom center of the upper shelf (between the center legs), and a triangulating crossmember between the leg uprights, crossbolted into the legs and the shelf member, and screwed into the bottom of the plywood end plates.
The end plate is a full structural gusset, glued and screwed into each individual member, for rigidity.
For the drawing, basically because I didn't feel like taking the time to do it, I just show a simple miter and butt join from the top of the outboard legs, to the bottom of the T-Beam. For the real thing, I haven't decided whether I'll rafter cut it, to give a two face join; or cut a corner block and pocket screw through it (thank god for Kreg jigs).
I'll probably put 3" longmembers and crossmembers across the bottom of the outside legs, and from leg to leg, both on the bottom and the top of the base shelf. Then I'll do inside corner bracing on the bottom frame, with a 3" brace, and a 3/4" ply gusset glued and screwed over it; to bolt the casters and feet to. Finally, I'll run two more 3" longmembers, from one the inside edge of the corner brace, across the entire bottom to the other inside edge of the corner brace, on each side... or if I decide to keep the center legs, I'll just run the two long members underneath the legs and screw up through them..
All that will edge the base shelf, keep the center of the base rock solid, add mass, AND make for a seriously rigid frame structure.
If I end up dogboning the bottom shelf, I'll leave the end crossmembers, but move the outer long members inboard to say... an 18" wide center section; then triangulate the frame with outside corner bracing (making a 7" right triangle with diagonal members on all four corners, from the end of the outboard legs, to the long members).
However, I don't think I need to dogbone it. Looking at it drawn up, and given the mass of the thing; possibly including a few bags of lead shot, or sand... I think I can reduce the width of the bottom shelf/splay of the legs, down to 28". Given the lathe is 8" wide (the benchtop it's on is 9" wide) and the toolrest is right on the outside edge of that width, that would only leave 9.5" sticking out further than the tool rest, which should let me work just fine without leaning in...
...and frankly, even at 32" wide that's still only an 11.5" reach; and I've personally got a 14" reach from 90 degrees, elbows straight down from the midline of my body to the center of my fist (add another 5" from the center of my fist to the tips of my fingers). In a normal working stance, I don't think the full width bottom shelf would restrict my movement or force a reach at all, especially with 4" or 6" casters on the thing, so I can get my toes under the frame (somehow, I'm not worried about the frame collapsing and falling on my feet).
Of course, I'm taller than most, with longer arms than most.
Oh and yes, I know this is a ridiculously heavy, and overbuilt design.
That's the point. All up, that's about 96 linear feet of 3" milled 4x4 and most of a sheet of plywood. It should weigh in around 280-300lbs, depending on the total weight of the hardware and fasteners used.
I WANT it to be very heavy to absorb vibration. I want lots of doubled up structure to improve rigidity; but I also want it to be of very slightly elastic elastic wood construction, to better damp out that vibration.
Oh and incidentally, the total cost, including fasteners, would run about $180 if bought from a home despot in my area.
One might also note, that if you took the 32" wide dogbone base I talk about above, graft it to the top T-Beam instead of just the 9" wide benchtop, and run a couple of legs down the outside corners into the base frame; one could make one hell of a rigid, heavy, solid, and ambidextrous shooting bench.
http://www.woodstockint.com/SHOP-FOX-Shop-Fox-Mini-Wood-Lathe/W1752/
And the extension bed for it:
http://www.woodstockint.com/Extended-Bed-for-W1752-Shop-Fox-Mini-Wood-Lathe/W1753/
The extension bed stretches the distance center to center up to 38" (so I can turn full spindles and table legs, canes, and other long items, in addition to the 15" and under tool handles, pens etc...); and extends the overall length of the lathe to 60".
The manufacturer makes a stand for the lathe without the extension bed, but not for the lathe with it. There are a few sets of lathe legs that can bolt to the lathe bed; but I don't like leaving the bed extender join unsupported.
There are some generic stands out there that are large enough, but they're all sized for much large lathes. Besides, they're really quite expensive (much more than the lathe itself cost), and I don't think any of them are quite what I want. Frankly, I don't think any of the commercial lathe stands are heavy enough, and they're all made of the "wrong" material.
The lathe itself only weighs 140lbs (with the extension. 102lbs without). The commercial lathe stands for smaller lathes are all stamped and bent sheetmetal, with bolted together construction; and most of them on their own weigh less than 60lbs. For a lathe of this size, I'd like to see at least 300lbs weight overall for stability and to damp out vibration. Not only that, but sheetmetal is a poor material for damping, especially when bolted together. Wood or cast Iron are much better choices, being both heavy, and naturally vibration damping. If you have to have sheetmetal, you want it fully boxed out, with welded construction (and if you want to improve it, fill the boxed tubes with foam, sand, or concrete, for more damping).
Since I don't have the capability of making a cast iron stand, and boxing out and welding up a sheetmetal stand is a hell of a lot of trouble and expense; I'm going to go for wood.
Frankly, just about every serious woodturner I know has either a huge, heavy, and expensive cast iron or welded steel stand made specifically for their lathes (usually by the manufacturer of the lathe); or they build their own wood stand. Most guys using smaller lathes (and yes, this is a very small lathe by "serious" standards) build their own.
...plus, I've already GOT a bunch of 4x4s and plywood, in the right sizes, plus all the hardware I need, as leftovers from other projects; cost being a not insignificant factor here.
So, what I'm thinking of, is milling four 6 foot lengths of 4x4 down to 3" wide, flat and true, gluing and lag screwing three of them together across the top and one more as a stringer down the middle creating a T. That will give me a very stable structure to bolt legs and a top into.
Then I'll glue and screw a 3/4" plywood top down over the T, and glue a tempered hardboard surface down over that. Then I'll reinforce the edges of the top with drywall corner bead.
For legs, I'm thinking an A frame style (like a sawhorse only bigger), with three uprights rafter cut at the top to notch into the T truss. I'm thinking about a shelf at the bottom of the a frame gussets (call it 12" below the worktop), and a floor shelf at the bottom of the legs; with heavy duty locking casters on one end, and height adjusting feet at the other, with non-slip pads.
Oh and there is one other major problem I have with most commercial stands: they are all WAY too low.
I'm 6'2", and I like my tool rest to be at 44-48"; which is where my forearms arms are 90 degrees from the elbows out, when standing up straight with my feet shoulder width apart. Most lathe tables, or lathe leg sets, put the tool rest at 38"-44"
The top is going to be 9" wide, and I'm thinking a 28" wide base should be wide enough to be stable, without forcing me to lean too much... but I'm not sure. I may need to dogbone the base shelf, making the end frames 32" wide, and make the center uprights perpendicular members, cutting the center shelf in along the working length of the bed so I can stand closer to the toolrest.
I think I'll put a bracket/upright/holddown for a dust and chip collection system on the backside, and some chisel racks, and layout tool racks; on the front side, in the upper shelf area.
Finally, some hinged or sliding covers over the shelves, to keep out the dust and chips.
So any ideas? criticisms? experience? suggestions? Anything I'm missing? Think I've got the dimensions right? Any cool features I should be thinking of?
UPDATE:
So, I got some comments about my lathe workstation idea, saying that people couldn't visualize what I was thinking of.
Well, thanks to the wonderful people at Google, that's easy enough to resolve.
Someone asked for a threeview; but I think reciprocal isometric views, and a face on view (rather than two faces and an isometric) would be more illustrative.
So here's a couple of shots of a quickie sketchup model I did...
first the left iso:
Then the right iso:
And the end face:
Not sure exactly why sketchup added and/or subtracted 1/64th inch to the measurements, because I know they were accurate when I drew them up.
The lighter wood is 4x4 dimensional lumber, milled to 3". The mid tone wood is 3/4" plywood, and the dark wood is tempered hardboard.
I'm not sure whether the center uprights are necessary or not. I'm thinking with the T-Beam for the top, it's probably strong and rigid enough without them. Also, I wouldn't be doing any silly through joinery on the middle shelf. Just a gap around the legs with some edging.... if I even put the legs in at all.
What the drawing doesn't show is the metal top coaming (done with drywall corner probably), shelf edging (probably some premade molding trim strips), bottom framing, or the casters and height adjusting feet.
I left them off for clarity; and because I haven't found exactly what I want to use yet. Same thing for whatever dust and chip collection system I end up rigging (probably one of those big ABS chutes into my shop dust collector).
Also, I need to reduce the height of the legs based on whatever heavy duty locking casters I find, so that the worktop ends up at 40 inches.
Now that I've clarified with a drawing, let's confuse things again.
I'd probably put in another 3" frame member across the bottom center of the upper shelf (between the center legs), and a triangulating crossmember between the leg uprights, crossbolted into the legs and the shelf member, and screwed into the bottom of the plywood end plates.
The end plate is a full structural gusset, glued and screwed into each individual member, for rigidity.
For the drawing, basically because I didn't feel like taking the time to do it, I just show a simple miter and butt join from the top of the outboard legs, to the bottom of the T-Beam. For the real thing, I haven't decided whether I'll rafter cut it, to give a two face join; or cut a corner block and pocket screw through it (thank god for Kreg jigs).
I'll probably put 3" longmembers and crossmembers across the bottom of the outside legs, and from leg to leg, both on the bottom and the top of the base shelf. Then I'll do inside corner bracing on the bottom frame, with a 3" brace, and a 3/4" ply gusset glued and screwed over it; to bolt the casters and feet to. Finally, I'll run two more 3" longmembers, from one the inside edge of the corner brace, across the entire bottom to the other inside edge of the corner brace, on each side... or if I decide to keep the center legs, I'll just run the two long members underneath the legs and screw up through them..
All that will edge the base shelf, keep the center of the base rock solid, add mass, AND make for a seriously rigid frame structure.
If I end up dogboning the bottom shelf, I'll leave the end crossmembers, but move the outer long members inboard to say... an 18" wide center section; then triangulate the frame with outside corner bracing (making a 7" right triangle with diagonal members on all four corners, from the end of the outboard legs, to the long members).
However, I don't think I need to dogbone it. Looking at it drawn up, and given the mass of the thing; possibly including a few bags of lead shot, or sand... I think I can reduce the width of the bottom shelf/splay of the legs, down to 28". Given the lathe is 8" wide (the benchtop it's on is 9" wide) and the toolrest is right on the outside edge of that width, that would only leave 9.5" sticking out further than the tool rest, which should let me work just fine without leaning in...
...and frankly, even at 32" wide that's still only an 11.5" reach; and I've personally got a 14" reach from 90 degrees, elbows straight down from the midline of my body to the center of my fist (add another 5" from the center of my fist to the tips of my fingers). In a normal working stance, I don't think the full width bottom shelf would restrict my movement or force a reach at all, especially with 4" or 6" casters on the thing, so I can get my toes under the frame (somehow, I'm not worried about the frame collapsing and falling on my feet).
Of course, I'm taller than most, with longer arms than most.
Oh and yes, I know this is a ridiculously heavy, and overbuilt design.
That's the point. All up, that's about 96 linear feet of 3" milled 4x4 and most of a sheet of plywood. It should weigh in around 280-300lbs, depending on the total weight of the hardware and fasteners used.
I WANT it to be very heavy to absorb vibration. I want lots of doubled up structure to improve rigidity; but I also want it to be of very slightly elastic elastic wood construction, to better damp out that vibration.
Oh and incidentally, the total cost, including fasteners, would run about $180 if bought from a home despot in my area.
One might also note, that if you took the 32" wide dogbone base I talk about above, graft it to the top T-Beam instead of just the 9" wide benchtop, and run a couple of legs down the outside corners into the base frame; one could make one hell of a rigid, heavy, solid, and ambidextrous shooting bench.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)