The Scout Rifle is Officially Dead

Sooo... yeah...

This is the "new product" Ruger has been teasing for the past few weeks:

Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle Now Available In 5.56 NATO

"Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is proud to announce that the Ruger® Gunsite Scout Rifle is now chambered in 5.56 NATO. This newest version of the Gunsite Scout Rifle features a hybrid chamber that shoots both 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem. accurately and safely. The rifle weighs approximately 7.1 lbs., features a 16.1", 1/2-28 threaded barrel with a 1:8 twist rate, offers controlled round feed and is shipped with a 10-round detachable box magazine. 

"This is a natural extension of the Gunsite Scout Rifle line," said Gunsite Instructor Ed Head, one of the contributors to the original Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle design. "Being chambered in a lower cost, universally available caliber, and with the Ruger reputation for reliability and accuracy, this is another serious rifle for those serious about rifles," he added."

Ok so lessee here...

1. Not actually a new product
2. It utterly bastardizes and defeats the purpose of the entire concept of the scout rifle
3. It is that particular concept which is supposed to make the weapon desirable and useful
4. Which even then, is flawed at best.

Straight up, it's not a scout rifle.

Why?

Because it's in 5.56.

By definition, a scout rifle cannot be in 5.56

Why not?

...and why do I say the entire concept is flawed at best?

What Is A Scout Rifle?

Col Coopers (actually Eric Chings, but Cooper was it's biggest proponent for decades) concept of the scout rifle, is a light, handy rifle in a useful chambering, and designed, optimized, built, and accessorized, to be useful for all purposes in the woods or bush, described thusly:

Quote:

"Let us attempt it by declaring that a general-purpose rifle is a conveniently portable, individually operated firearm, capable of striking a single decisive blow, on a live target of up to 200 kilos in weight, at any distance at which the operator can shoot with the precision necessary to place a shot in a vital area of the target."

and further specified as follows:

1. In a chambering sufficient to take thin and medium skinned game of up to 200 kilos at up to 300 yards, and which is commonly available to civilians (.308/7.62 nato is the exemplar)
   
2. Weight: 3 kilos including "all accessories" but no ammo.
   
3. Length: Max 1 meter (39")
   
4. Telescopic sight: an intermediate eye relief of low power, generally 1.5-3x. This scope is mounted forward of the magazine.
   
5. Generally the stocks will be synthetic
   
6. Scout barrels will be short and light (approx. 19".)
   
7. Actions:
• Bolt
• two-lug, ninety-degree rotation
• Mauser style claw extractor and positive ejector
• Bolt knob should be round and smooth
• Safety should disconnect trigger mechanism and should work from front to rear.
• Magazine: should protect the points of soft-pointed spitzer bullets
• The action should offer some built in aperture sight.
• Magazine cutoff.
• Trigger: smooth, clean break at 3 lb.
  
8. Accessories: Flush sling sockets, rounded heel of the butt, butt magazine, either cuff style or built in, some form of retractable bipod.

So, why is it Not a Scout rifle?

The very first part of the definition of a scout rifle is that it be in a chambering that is useful on thin and medium skinned game of up to 200 kilos, at any range which the rifleman may usefully make a shot, which is roughed out to about 300 yards.

5.56 nato is NOT useful on ANY game of up to 200 kilos... except of course human beings... at ANY range; thus, by definition, a scout rifle cannot be chambered in 5.56 nato.

Ruger can call this a scout rifle all they want... It doesn't make it so.

So... What's that you said about a "Flawed Concept"?

This is the part where I put on my flame retardant suit, for the defenders of the scout rifle concept are few, but rabid.

Now, before I said that the concept was flawed at best, what did I mean by that?

There is exactly one thing which differentiates the scout rifle concept, from any other handy rifle of useful chambering.

That one thing, is the forward mounted long eye relief scope of low magnification.

... and it's not that great an idea.

The point of the forward mounted LER scope is to facilitate fast mounting and snapshooting in a flushing or self defense against dangerous game situation; and secondarily to leave the magwell unobstructed (or at least mostly unobstructed), for topping off magazines and clearing jams quickly.

That's fine... it's a decent set of requirements for a bush rifle, and for a self defense rifle.

But the forward mount LER scope, is simply not the optimal solution for the given requirements.

There is nothing a low magnification forward mount LER scope can do, that cannot be done better in every way by a modern holographic or red dot sight.

Modern red dots are compact enough that they need not be fully forward mounted... in fact some are so small that they can be mounted on the rear receiver ring, where the rear scope base would otherwise be mounted.

Red dots have very large sighting aperture, and are effectively eye relief and parallax free, allowing for faster mounting and target acquisition than any scope type optic. This allows for faster and more accurate snap shots, without compromising accuracy out to 200 or 300 meters. They are also available with magnifiers which may be quickly folded out of the way or removed, for up to 3x magnification.

Importantly, as they have no parallax, and no specific eye relief requirement, they can be mounted wherever the user feels most comfortable.

Most importantly, they are far more durable, damage resistant, and useful after being subjected to abuse and to mud, rain, dusty conditions etc... than any conventional scope type optic.

Of course, in the time that the scout rifle was conceived and refined, zero parallax holographic, reflex, and other "red dot" type sites, were either junk, or expensive toys for shotgun and.22 pistol spacegunners. They were not the reliable, tough, well developed sighting systems we have today.

With apologies to the late, great, Colonel Cooper; the scout rifle, is officially dead.

Five Years Later - Why bullpups aren't a great solution

In my ongoing series revisiting posts from five (or six) years ago, I thought I'd update one of my most read and linked posts, the one on bullpups.

In this case, I'm not doing a new post, but I've completely re-written (and corrected all the typos and dead links in) the old post. In particular I greatly simplified it, pulling out a bunch of wonkish detail on human mechanics and ergonomics which just about everyone ignored.

Oh and I renamed it; since I don't actually thing they're a BAD idea, but they aren't an optimal solution:

For some reason, the the bullpup rifle keeps being put forward as a good idea.

...Really, for the most part, they are not.

I'm an engineer and a firearms expert; by training, inclination, experience, and employment. I'm a veteran, a former security contractor, a former firearms trainer, and a class III armorer and light duty gunsmith (I don't have a barrel lathe or mill at the moment, and I don't want to be an FFL again; so I don't offer full gunsmithing).

I have a great appreciation for good engineering. Bullpups are, in general, not good engineering.

The bullpup rifle has one real advantage: bullpup designs allow for a shorter overall weapon, for a given length of barrel (typically between 4" and 7" shorter than a conventional rifle).

That's not an insignificant advantage. In some missions it's even a huge asset (particularly in urban combat, or infantry dismounted from armored vehicles).

In most missions though, that 4-7 inches isn't much of a plus.

On the other hand, the bullpup configuration has a number of disadvantages:

• Bullpup designs are mechanically more complex, requiring a long trigger linkage, and control system linkages. This seriously degrades both control feel, and reliability, and increases bulk and weight (there may be engineering solutions to this problem).
  
  If current munitions infrastructure and laws allowed for electronic trigger, feed, and ignition systems, this would be a non issue, and the bullpups advantage may outweigh it's several disadvantages; but for now, that's not an option (also, electronic systems have their own issues).
  
  
• If a bullpup has a catastrophic failure, instead of the explosion being six or eight inches in front of your eyes, it's right at your eyesocket, or touching your cheekbone or ear. The only good thing is, if the bolt flys back, it doesn't end up in your eye socket.
  
  Most bullpups also eject hot brass, and vent hot gasses in the vicinity of your eyes and ears (some eject downward or forward, which is a better solution for a bullpup, if it's engineered properly).
  
  
• Mag changes on most bullpups are slower (sometimes much slower) because they require more repositioning, that positioning can be awkward, and can be difficult to see (if necessary) without fully dismounting the rifle.
  
  A conventional rifle allows you to see your mag changes, and is more easily maneuvered with your dominant hand, which makes mag changes easier in general.
  
  More importantly a human being can naturally bring their hands together in the dark. As a basic design guideline, magwells should either be in your dominant hand, or just in front of it; because it is far more difficult to manipulate anything dexterously that is located behind your dominant hand.
  
• Because of the positioning of the magazine (usually the part of a gun extending lowest) close to your shoulder when the weapon is mounted, bullpups can be difficult to fire while prone (though this is common with some other rifle designs as well).
  
  Note in the pictures below, the magazine is by far the lowest point of the rifle; and being located behind the dominant hand and close to your shoulder; when you drop prone it will tend to strike the ground forcing the muzzle downward.
  
  This can also cause problems with mags being warped, ripped out of the magwell, having the baseplate broken off, or the rifle itself being ripped out of the users hand when hitting the deck.
  
  A conventional rifle with a long magazine can have issues with dropping prone as well, but because the mag is positioned forward of the dominant hand, instead of forcing the muzzle down, it will tend to force the muzzle up; and though it's not advisable to use the magazine as a monopod, it's possible. With a bullpup, it isn't.
  
  This isn't an issue for rifles that are generally fired off bipods, so in an SAW or LMG role, the bullpup may be an appropriate solution (though having the feed system in such tight quarters with your shoulder and cheek is its own issue).
  
  
• Charging the rifle and manipulating the operating handle is often more difficult, and sometimes can't be done without dismounting the rifle, or reaching over the rifle with your support hand (again, some conventional rifles do share this weakness; and this is a problem that can easily be solved with proper engineering).
  
  
• Bullpups are naturally balanced in a non-instinctive way.
  
  This is really the biggest problem, and the one that is hardest to solve with engineering.
  
  The balance point on most bullpups is in between your hand and your shoulder when mounted, which is unnatural. We have a natural tendency to try to balance things between our hands, not between our hand and shoulder.
  
  The only way to correct this is to put heavy things in front of your dominant hand, or to make the weapon short and light enough that this won't make a difference (and even then it will still be more awkward and less instinctive to point; but several modern bullpups have taken the second approach).
  
  This balance will tend to make a bullpup tend to shift its butt under recoil, unless it is very tightly mounted to your shoulder; particularly during rapid fire. This tendency is somewhat countered by the position of your support hand so far forward on the barrel,  by the fact that the overall leverage moment of the muzzle is lower (the muzzle isn't as far from either your shoulder, or your dominant hand), and by the fact that most bullpups have straightline recoil.
  
  A conventional rifle is balanced in between your dominant and support hands, and there are good reasons for that. A human being naturally handles things that balance in the palm, or in front of your dominant hand, better, because we naturally want to balance things between our hands.
  
  Under recoil, the muzzle of a conventional rifle rises, but just from gravity will fall into you support hand again without actually holding or pulling it down, because the fulcrum of the lever is in your dominant hand, and the balance point is in front of the fulcrum. 

Some of these issues can be solved, or mitigated with engineering (and most modern bullpup designs do resolve, or at least reduce, many of those issues). Also, a lot of this can be worked around with training.

What it comes down to though, is that bullpups are ergonomically incorrect for human beings. When you have the option, you don't train someone to do something ergonomically incorrect, you redesign the equipment to fit human ergonomics.

The only good thing about a bullpup is the short overall length in relation to their barrel length; and that is not advantage enough to outweigh the disadvantages for most missions.

Well, that and the fact that they look cool, which is the real reason so many people are enamored of them.

A lot of folks have watched a lot of stargate (or played a lot of stealth shooter video games). They use the FN-P90 PDW which isn't exactly a bullpup, but follows a similar concept; and they do just look kind of futuristic.

The Steyr AUG was designed in 1976, and it still looks like a space gun:

Several countries have adopted bullpup designes as their primary service arm, notably Austria, and Australia (the AUG above), France (the FAMAS),

and the UK (the SA80 system, now in the L85-A2 variant):

The reasons cited are usually overall length, the extra accuracy and velocity afforded by the longer barrels allowed by the configuration, and some medical or efficiency studies showing that the bullpup was actually ergonomically correct.

Here's the thing: every study that the British did showing that the SA80 design was ergonomically correct, or that the reliability issue was solved, has over the past few years been proven to have been "Unjustifiably optimistic", or some other such euphemism for fraud.

The SA80 has  proven to be ridiculously unreliable , though at least it is SA80 is quite accurate when it functions properly (also the HK refit and remanufacture of the A2 variant has dramatically improved reliability... Though it's still not great).

The SA80 in fact is so poorly designed, that firing it from your left shoulder will give you a black eye (and can even break your cheekbone) and send hot brass and gasses flying into your eyes. You also can't fire the thing from the left side of cover without exposing your whole head and torso.

I have tried the P90, the SA80, the Steyr AUG, the Bushmaster M17, the FAMAS, and the IMI Tavor (the latter two held and played with, but not shot), and I haven't found any of them but the P90 to be remotely comfortable, or anything but awkward. I've tried a couple of bullpup conversions from other weapons as well, same thing (excepting several bullpup sniper rifles, that I quite liked, and as I said, the P90 which is only sort of a bullpup... it's quite handy and nice to shoot).

UPDATE: Since I first wrote this, I've had a chance to shoot with the FN F/S2000 in both semi and full auto variants: 

While it looks like a heavy and awkward spacegun, it's actually very light, well balanced, and comfortable. Reports from the field are that it is generally reliable, but there aren't a lot out there yet to establish a useful sample.  

Mag changes are still less than ideal, and the trigger is still poor; but the handling of the gun is good, and it is reasonably accurate for an assault rifle. I do worry however about the forward ejection system. It seems to me like it would be easy to jam up in the field. 

Also, since I originally wrote this, Kel-Tec has introduced their RFB forward ejecting bullpup in 7.62x51: 

Unfortunately, not many of them are out in the world yet, so I haven't had a chance to fire one; but the design seems to address some of the issues above.  I have real concerns about the forward and up ejection system, and the inability to clear a jam without field stripping the weapon however. 

Until someone has shot thousands of rounds through them, had to change mags in the dark, and in cramped conditions, had to clear jams under combat conditions etc... they can't know how unsuitable bullpups are as anything other than a niche weapon, to be used only where OAL is the most critical factor (but where SMGs are not an appropriate choice).

For example, bullpup sniper rifles make a lot of sense, particularly in .50bmg and other anti-materiel chamberings. In fact, any weapon that you would normally fire off a bipod makes sense as a bullpup, because the ergonomic issues around balance, and lying prone don't really apply.

People say "Well the designs just aren't good enough yet, I'm sure as they mature they'll get better, isn't it the natural way to go eventually?"

First of all, why would it be?

Other than the fact that the Sci-Fi network likes featuring bullpups in their television shows, there is no reason why bullpups should be "the future". They have one design advantage, shorter length, and many design disadvantages.

Now, when we use caseless ammmo loaded in 1000 round blocks, and using electronic ignition systems... sure, bullpups make sense. At that point, all the basic engineering weaknesses are compensated for, and the advantage of a longer barrel for length of weapon offsets the balance issues... if they even exist then, given progress in materials.

But for now, so long as we are using relatively "conventional" ammunition and firing mechanisms, those engineering problems outweight the one real advantage; and the ergonomic issues simply compound the problem.

Engineers aren't miracle workers. We can refine a design until it's mechanically perfect within its design parameters; but the point I'm trying to make, is that at our current level of cartridge firing weapons development, there is no way to design an ergonomic bullpup.

So, bullpups are only slightly shorter than their conventional counterparts (maybe 7" in the case of an assault rifle), nothing to sneeze at, but not a huge advantage in most cases considering the missions they are intended for; they are less reliable and more mechanically complex than conventional designs, they are ergonomically incorrect, and they are more likely to injure their user.

I'm not denying there are missions where a bullpup is appropriate (as I said above), but I can't see any conventional situation where a bullpup assault rifle is the right tradeoff to make; even urban warfare and infantry dismounted from armor.

But they look cool...

The Boomers, They Were Shot

And the anvils, they were blown up; and the bowling balls they were flung many many yards.

I am of course speaking of the esteemed institution, long range rifle shoot, general good time, floor wax, and dessert topping that is Boomershoot.

Yes folks, we finally made it this year, after five years of trying; including last year, where we were only 3 hours away and still couldn't go.

Actually, it almost looked like this year was going to be a no-go for us as well. Thursday before last, Mel and I flew home from Phoenix, and got severely ill on the way. We both ended up with a sinus and upper respiratory infection that had us down all week long.

Around mid week, we were still feeling awful, not breathing right, sinuses all clogged up (and believe me, you don't want to shoot a high powered rifle when your sinuses are clogged up). Also, because we were sick, all my final prep work had been delayed, and we weren't even close to ready to go.

Also, due to shipping delays, I didn't get the final pieces of the two rifles until Thursday. I actually stayed up most of the night Thursday doing the final fitting and assembly on them:

In general, I'm very happy with how the rifles turned out.As I noted in a previous post, we brought:

1. The "understudy":

• Winchester Model 70 in .300wm
• 26" 1:10 featherweight barrel
• Timney trigger, set to 1.5lbs (totally crisp. No takeup, no creep)
• Hogue pillar bed stock
• CDI Precision AICS magazine system bottom metal
• EGW 20moa pic rail
• Millet 35mm high tac rings
• Millet LRS-1 6-25x56 35mm scope
• Horus ASLI
• Harris bipod
• Weight 11.5 pounds, unloaded, empty mag, without bipod

2. The "development" gun : 

• Thompson Center Encore, blue and wood, in .300wm
• Factory trigger, clean and light at under 2lbs
• 26" 1:10 full heavy, stainless target barrel from Bulberry, with Bulberry medium length, medium width flat target forend, in AAA fancy walnut
• EGW 20moa pic rail
• Weaver 30mm high tac rings
• Burris BlackDiamond 8-32x50 target scope
• Horus ASLI
• Weight 11.5 pounds 

Sorry about the quality of the pics here; they especially don't do the forend of the Encore justice. The wood is really nice; and overall they're both good looking guns.

The platforms went together nicely on Friday; took us about two hours total to cut and screw them together, and they loaded up into the truck exactly as planned.

Mel and I were still too sick to even think about shooting on Friday, so we decided to wait until Saturday morning and see how we were doing. We were originally going to get up around 0730 and try to get to the site around lunchtime; but early in the morning I decided we could both use the sleep time to get better, and we'd leave at the last possible moment so we could set up a bit before the site closed down, and then get on to the banquet; so I shut off our alarms, and we slept in til 11:30.

That turned out to have been a good idea. Even though we missed two entire days of shooting, and all of Gene Econs precision rifle clinic (next year, definitely. You can't get this kind of training at that price anywhere - or anytime - else), the extra sleep had us well enough to set up that evening, and then feel pretty good for the main event on Sunday. I'm pretty sure without it, we wouldn't have been feeling well enough Sunday to shoot all day (by the end of the day, we were both exhausted, and I was really not feeling well).

So at any rate, we dropped the shooting platforms and our benches and table onsite overnight on Saturday, then went to the hotel to check in, and hit the banquet.

Unfortunately, our beloved Nikon D80 was a casualty this year, having had its life tragically cut short in an accident with a tile floor a few weeks before the shoot.So we took a lot more pics than we'll be posting, but most of them didn't come out well enough to share; including unfortunately all from the banquet.

We did take a few videos to share with you however, and there were a couple of pics good enough to share as well.

As always, even though we live here, we never cease to be amazed by the natural beauty of Idaho. Even our hotel (where we also had the banquet dinner) was great; with private balconies overlooking the clearwater river:

The views from the road between the hotel and the site simply cannot be captured with a camera. You have to come see them yourself... though, if you're afraid of heights, you might want to have someone else drive. It's a 1900 foot drop (according to my GPS) from the palouse, down into the grossly misnamed river valley (more like a really long, green, canyon).

The banquet was a great time. We sat with a few other bloggers, and their family and friends; having a great time with old friends and new. The food was actually pretty good (though I dont think there were many kisses exchanged between the spouses there that night, given how much garlic was in the mashies); and the raffle was great fun, raising a couple thousand dollars for Soldiers Angels.

Sunday all opened up with a beautiful fireball:

Towards the end of the video, you can see this shot looking down the line, taken from next to Phil and Daves personal luxury shooting condo:



We were way down near the other end of the line, across the lowlands, not quite into the .50cal ghetto. All in all it worked out to be a good spot, with great neighbors.

As we hadn't had a chance to sight in the rifles before we left for the shoot, and missed the afternoon session on Friday, the first few shots of the morning were sighters; taken at terrain features 50 and 100 yards away.

I managed to get the Encore on target down to about 1/2" at 50 yards in 5 shots (using a clump of daffodils, not a paper target), and the Winchester in 3; and we were able to spend the rest of the day out at long range.

I should mention, Sunday was Mels first day ever shooting past 300 yards; and she did exceptionally well. By the end of the day, she was hitting with some consistency all the way out to 650 yards; and she was dead on at 375.

In this video, Mel caught my last sighting shot with the Encore (the first report you hear), and the view downrange:

The treeline on the center right is 375 yards. The base of the hill to the center left is 525 yards, and the crest of the hill is 700 yards.

Note: the targets are too small to see at this range, with this camera; but they are all about 1moa for the range (4" for 400 yard, 8" for 700 yard etc...).

Mel also caught me setting up for the next shot, my first shot of the day on a live boomer; a 525 yard shot on the lowest line of boomers out on the hill.

Unfortunately, although we were making lots of good clean hits, we weren't getting any boomers blowing. In fact, I only managed to blow one boomer all day; because I sensibly started at shorter range and worked my way up to longer range. The short range boomers weren't blowing up (more on that in a second) and by the time I got out to 600 yards and up, all the boomers were either exploded, powdered, or just weren't going to go.

The one big disappointment of the day, really was the boomers themselves. This year,  Joe switched the shorter range targets, from foldup cardboard boxes, to thin plastic clamshell salad/side dish takeout boxes.

The way the explosive mix used works, it needs impact and pressure to detonate; and the container the mix is in holds the charge together tightly enough, long enough, so that the shockwave can propagate through the mix and detonate.

Unfortunately, it seems that these new containers work fine with relatively low powered rifles; and Joe sensibly assumed that if it worked with a low powered rifle, it would also work for a higher powered rifle. What Joe didn't account for, was higher powered rifles shattering the small plastic containers or zipping right through them, without detonating the mix.

So, unfortunately, most of the plastic containered boomers (which was all of the boomers at less than 650 yards) didn't detonate. Maybe one out of ten would detonate on even a solid hit.

I know that Joe is absolutely mortified at this. He does his damndest to make sure everyone has a great time, and the boomers work as advertised, and I know he's upset they didn't this year (and of course he apologized to everyone profusely)... but we all had a great time anyway.

This is approximately what a boomer detonates like when it's actually working (minus the fridge of course):

Overall, the performance of the rifles was great. To the extent that the wind co-operated, we were able to make clean hits at any range with both rifles.

In the rare times when the wind wasn't coming from three directions at once (that's not a joke by the way. There were times when every flag on the field was blowing at a different speed and direction), I was able to shoot some strings on either the remainder of exploded targets, or on targets that wouldn't explode.

I managed to put 4 rounds into about 2" at 375 yards, from the Encore. With the Model 70, my best strings were 10 into or just at the edge of an 8" target at 700 (a boomer that failed to detonate) with two flyers (wind probably); or  3 into about 4" at 375.

Frankly, I'm thrilled with the Bulberry barrel on the Encore; not so much with the featherweight barrel on the Model 70. Theres a huge jump from even the longest bullet I can load in the rifle, to the lands of the rifling; and as it heated up (pretty fast. 20 rounds in 40 minutes had the barrel VERY hot), the consistency went way down. I think I'm going to send it off to Krieger when time and budget allow.

Also, I'm not happy with the Hogue stock for the Model 70. I bought the pillar bed stock, and the CDi bottom metal which is designed to work with a pillar bed; but the pillars in the stock are EXTREMELY long. I guess to allow for a lot of variation in the drop in actions, but in my case they were so long, that the magazine couldn't ride high enough in the action to allow the bolt to engage the cartridge rim and mag feed.

It's only about 1/16th inch too low, and the stock, bottom metal, and action all bed together quite rigidly; so I could just mill out the pillars 1/8th (and cut new clearance in the plastic of the stock for the action, which is messy and irritating), but I think I'm just going to wait for budget to allow, and get a better stock, with pillars sized appropriately (this one was only $80 anyway).

I was very satisfied with both scopes. Even at maximum magnification (25x and 32x respectively, both very high magnification. Most people never use more than 12x or 16x), both scopes were clear, relatively bright, and relatively sharp. At the same exit pupil size (the Millett is a 56mm and the Burris is a 50mm, so that was at two different magnifications), the Burris is definitely brighter and clearer; about the same as a NightForce (yes, seriously). 

The Millet definitely isn't as sharp, clear, or bright. You especially lose sharpness and brightness above 16x in comparison. There is also a lot of color washout, chromatic aberration, and fringing, at high magnification.  That's the difference between higher end coatings, and the coatings on a low end scope like the Millett.

One thing that I was very happy with, was the repeatability of adjustments on both scopes. I had detailed ballistic charts for all the loads in both rifles (unfortunately not chrono'd, didn't have time, but based on data from Walt Berger, and from Sierra) which proved to be very close to dead on. More so, we were dialing up and down from 375 yards, to 700 yards all day long; and we were as close to dead on as we could get within the range of wind, rifle accuracy, and human error. 

Given the performance today, shooting about 100 rounds of very close to max pressure 180gr and 208gr .300wm; I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Millet LRS-1 to anyone wanting a long range scope for under $500.

I was also quite happy with the EGW rails, and the Millet rings which came with the scope. They all did the job as advertised; though if I had a choice, I would have preferred the rings be a bit lower. Between the rails and the rings, the scope is a little high.

Unfortunately, the Weaver four bolt rings I used to mount the Burris on the Encore, both didn't hold the scope securely under recoil, and didn't hold tight to the rail, even with loc-tite. They were simply unacceptable.

I did clean the rings before mounting, and tightened them to the recommended torque spec, but they loosened up under the recoil of about 20 rounds of .300wm. I tightened them all down (unfortunately I didn't bring loc-tite with me) again,  but they loosened up twice more during the day (probably 100 rounds total). Over the day, the scope slid back in the rings about 1/2" twice, and the front ring loosened on the rail enough to wiggle.

I think the problem is the finish Weaver is using. It's theoretically matte, but it's actually quite slick, and slightly shiny. Combined with a slight imprecision in the mating surfaces, and you've got a combination guaranteed to loosen up.

Honestly... I could try to fix the rings as they are, but I'm just going to return them and go for some six bolt rings, with a less slick finish.

One thing that surprised me, was that I actually had to move both scopes to the rear anyway.  Although in my testing in my workshop the eye relief seemed fine; as I originally mounted the scopes, once on the bench, and especially in the lead sled; it was difficult to get a proper cheek weld, parallax free, and with proper eye relief.

I ended up moving both scopes back 1/2" or so during the lunch break; and Mel and I were both able to get much more confortable cheek welds, without coming anywhere near hitting the ocular in recoil.

One thing I was very UNhappy about, was the rail mount for the Horus ASLI.

The scope ring mount for the ASLI on the Encore worked fine, and didn't loosen up or shift at all through 100 rounds. The rail mount I bought for the Win70 though (they don't make a 35mm scope ring mount, so I couldn't put it on the scope) didn't work at all. The loc-tited screw holding the ASLI into the mount loosened up after just five rounds, and in full recoil, the ASLI flew off the gun. I tightened it down twice more, but it kept loosening up. The third time the ASLI came off the gun, it apparently stripped the threads out of the locking screw, since it came out of the mount with the threads still on it.

I'll be calling Horus about that in the next day or so.

The Caldwell Lead Sled could only have worked better if I'd had more weight on it. I tried to find lead shot bags, but shot is out of stock everywhere locally (and I'm certainly not going to pay to ship it); and olympic free weights not only wouldn't be as much weight, but they cost about a buck a pound these days. I was stuck using a 50lb sandbag, and it draped down over the frame, part of the weight resting on either side of the bench around the sled, such that I don't know how much weight was actually bearing on the sled (but it couldn't have been much more than half, if that).

If I got the hold perfect, the sled would take up the full shock, and I could spot my own impacts. If I didn't get the hold exactly right, the whole sled would jump a couple inches, and it would take me a minute or so to get reset and back on target.

The elevation adjustment screw though; absolutely invaluable. I could just set the rifle up, solid and socketed in; come off the scope, and then when I went back down I was still on target. So much so that I actually took both eyes off the scope and spotted my 50 yard targets when I was sighting the rifles in (and yes, it actually moved that little. I tested it several times before I actually took a shot. The reticle never moved more than a hair before I shot); which was a huge help in getting on target quickly.

Finally, the handloads worked out great. I had a feeling that the 208 Hornadys (they don't publish the BC for some reason) would have ballistically identical results to the 210 Bergers, and I was right. I ran the calculations for the Bergers and used that table, and it matched out solid.

I love Berger, and I'll always do business with them (that kind of company is worth supporting); but it's good to know the Hornadys are available, and perform similarly, at a much lower price.

We had some more entertainment at lunch time, launching anvils with black powder:

And launching bowling balls downrange with mortars:

I'll tell you... It never seems like you're shooting for 6 hours, but all of a sudden it's 1630 and it's time to pack up. Also, it's amazing just how exhausting sitting at a bench for 7 hours (6 hours plus lunch) can be. Long range shooting requires concentration, and even though you're not "doing anything" by the end of a shooting day, you are totally wiped.

By the end of the day, we were definitely ready to pack it in; and enjoy the 3 and a bit hour ride home through some of the prettiest parts of Idaho.

Speaking thereof, this is the view from the climb out of the Clearwater river valley, where the Clearwater meets the Snake river at Lewiston (click to embiggen):

A good time was had by all, some good shooting was done, and we got to visit with friends old and new... who could ask for more.

The Thousand Yard Conspiracy - Part 5: "The Understudy" - The Low Dollar Lightweight Layout

So, about 18 months ago, as part of my Thousand Yard Conspiracy series, I wrote a post about how to get into long range shooting on the (relatively) cheap.

In that piece, one of the recommendations I made, was grabbing a relatively low cost factory rifle, and converting it to long range use.

Around the same time, I managed to run across a late 80s or early 90s production Winchester model 70 featherweight, push feed, 26" barrel, blind mag, synthetic stock, in .300wm (I think it's actually an early production black shadow from the serial number); with just a few rounds through it (the previous owner only shot it twice, once for sighting, once on a successful elk hunt; less than a box of ammo through it).

Basically that gun, but blind box, and a "W" in the checkering.

Of course, the 70 featherweight, at under 8lbs and with a pencil barrel; isn't exactly the ideal platform to build a long range rifle on. It IS however a great platform for a mountain rifle (what the featherweight series was made for).

Now, I'm still halfway through my thousand yard gun build (I've got most of the pieces, just haven't done the barrel, the optics, and of course, the final assembly) and I need a practice rifle. Plus, I plan on hunting next year, and I need a hunting rifle... and I now live in the Idaho mountains...

And of course, the kicker on the featherweight, was that I snagged it for $300 (a new one would be about $800, though they don't do the featherweight long action in synthetic anymore, and a new one would be a CRF action).

For $300... what the hell, why not.

When it came time for boomershoot last year, and it became clear I wasn't going to finish my 1000 yard gun any time soon, I decided it was buildup time for "the understudy".

From the beginning what I decided I wanted, was to improve the accuracy and precision of the rifle, the ergonomics and shooting feel, and make it a good practice gun for my long range shooting; while keeping it light weight for dragging it around in the mountains, and preserving the budget for my bug custom.

Keeping in mind that budget constraint, that meant no rebarrel, a low cost optic, and a low cost stock.

So, I started acquiring parts as I could, on sale, special, or in good shape used.

Step one was to find a new stock. The Winchester factory synthetic stock was, frankly, crap. No pillars, no bedding block, nothing but plastic... no thanks. No way to tighten an action down properly without risk of warping.

I knew I wanted either a pillar bed, or a bedding block stock; and later Winchester synthetic featherweight guns used a McMillan stock.

Unfortunately, that stock runs about $500, and that was beyond the budget of this gun. H-S Precision also has a full length bedding block stock for this gun, but I won't do business with them anymore.

I was just about ready to go with a Bell and Carlson Carbelite, for about $200; when I found a Hogue overmold pillar bed stock on clearance for $79, and snagged it:

Yes, I could have grabbed the full bed model for another $100; but remember, this is a budget build, and the difference between pillar bedding in a stable reinforced synthetic stock, and a full bedding block, is going to be nearly negligible. If I was going to spend any real money on the stock, I'd spend the $500 on a McMillan. Plus, the full block stock is about half a pound heavier.

Now, all the stocks I was considering are cut for the hinged plate mag bottom metal; and this gun was a blind box. I hate blind box guns for field use though. If your bolt ever jams, you need to disassemble the entire gun to unload it. Although a blind box gun can be stiffer than a mag gun, in this case, with no bottom metal, just a three screw attachment to the action, and a plastic triggerguard; that is definitely not the case. It is lighter than a steel bottom metal with internal box though.

I looked at a couple different internal mag bottom metal solutions; and that was a strong option, but they were all going to cost me at least $200, and be quite heavy (all the ones I found for the long action Model 70 were steel, not aluminum). A new detachable box mag bottom metal wouldn't run much more than that; and even with the mag in them, they're not too much heavier than the steel bottom metals as they're aluminum. So I decided to go with a box mag.

The default choice most make is Badger, but the model 70 long action bottom metal from them is about $350 with a magazine, and is usually backordered.

I decided instead to go with CDI precision:

They're a small shop out of Florida that does really good work; and shipped me a bottom metal and AI .300wm magazine for $290, in a week. I think they're every bit as good as Badger, a little bit lighter, a fair bit cheaper, and quite responsive.

Now poking through that bottom metal is the second most important part of the gun as far as accuracy,  the trigger.

The factory trigger isn't awful. It's about a six pound weight, but should be easily adjustable (the Model 70 is one of the easiest triggers on the planet to adjust weight on) down to 4lbs.

Unfortunately, it's got a fair bit of creep, and a slightly uneven feel. Rather than try to stone the trigger into something good, there are plenty of drop in triggers already set to the weight I want (1.5-3 pounds), and with a crisp, creep free, even break.

Normally I'd buy a Jewell and be done with it, but again, the budget on this build is a little low, as they run about $250.

You can get a rifle Basix trigger for the Model 70 for about $80; but I found a considerably better Timney on sale for $90 and grabbed it immediately:

The final critical element of a shooting system, is an aiming system; and as this is a long range shooting system, that means a decent scope and mounts. 

 As it happens, another great deal came my way:

A Burris 8-32x50 BlackDiamond. 

The BlackDiamonds are the same optics and adjusters as their XTR line, but with low profile target knobs with screw down o-ring covers, rather than tactical turrets (and the 8-32x in particular has 1/8moa adjustments instead of 1/4moa... both a plus and minus there). It's even got a mildot reticle with a drop scale out to 700 meters on .300wm (same as in the xtr).

I've made no secret of the fact that I consider Burris's high end scopes the best value in midrange optics, with excellent optical performance, great toughness, and the best warranty in the business (lifetime, no questions asked).

The best part though, was the price. MSRP on the thing is $1350, but you can frequently get it online for around $850. I got this one, new in the box, never been mounted, with sunshade and butler creek covers, for $450.

Now normally I wouldn't go for an 8-32x given that I prefer a scope with a minimum exit pupil over 2mm. Anything lower than 2.5mm or so and you lose sharpness, so for a 50mm objective I prefer something more like a 5-20x or a 6-24x. 

But for the price I got... 

Nothing says I need to turn the knob past 24x... and besides at 32x on a bright sunshiny day, I can spot the holes better.

Also, at 21 ounces, it's a bit of a heavy SOB, but still lighter than a Nightforce (36oz for the comparable model), and you don't get good long range optics and light weight at the same time. 

So, how to mount it up?

As I said, the 8-32x has 1/8moa elevation adjustments. That's a great thing for precision at long range; a 1/8moa click means each click is only 1.31" at 1000 yards instead of the normal 2.62". Unfortunately it also means that unlike similar 30mm tube scopes, it's only got a 39moa elevation adjustment range (at least that what the documentation says. I actually measured 42moa in clicks; but that's not unusual).

That's not exactly a small range (some 25mm scopes have as little as 20moa), but it's not a lot for a gun that I want to shoot at 700 yards (in comparison, most tactical scopes have over 80moa adjustment... many over 100moa, and one I know of has 170moa adjustment).

Depending on bullet weight and design, and the velocity of the load from the rifle, .300 winmag runs anywhere from about a 25moa drop, to about a 40moa drop, at 1000 yards. That means, in order to leave a full range of adjustment for bullet drop compensation at all reasonable ranges, I need to mount on a 20moa canted rail.

Normally, the neutral set point of a scope (the point where if the optical center of the scope were mounted on the bore axis the crosshairs would line up with a laser shot down the bore) is somewhere near the middle of a scopes elevation adjustment range. This allows for the scope to adjust to a wide variety of zero ranges, mounting heights and positions etc... Then, you need to compensate for the offset of the centerline of the scope from the centerline of the bore. Finally, you need to compensate for the rise or drop of the bullet at your zero'd distance.

In a normal hunting scope, you're lucky if you have half the scopes adjustment range left once you're zeroed; though in some scopes there is deliberately more drop compensation than rise compensation (especially with tactical scopes, and other scopes designed for long range shooting).

A 20moa rail will hopefully put a 25/200 yard battlesight zero (with this sight offset, a 0moa adjustment from the neutral setpoint of the scope should intersect the ballistic arc of the bullet at 25 yards, and 200 yards. This is the battlesight zero) close to the very bottom of the adjustment range... preferably within 1/2 turn up or less; and a 300 yard zero (where I like to zero a 1000 yard gun. About a 2.5moa drop from 0/0, using the loading I plan on) to less than another 1/2 turn up or so (this scope runs 7moa elevation per turn, with six turns of total elevation available). That should let me dial in any range from 25 to 1000 yards, down to less than the mechanical accuracy of the rifle, within the full adjustment range of the scope.

Actually, presuming I get the results I expect from the load I want to use, I should be seeing something like 15moa drop at 700 yards, and 25moa drop at 1000; so presuming 200 yard zero was within 15moa of the bottom of the range, I could get away without a 20moa rail; but why take the chance? 

The rifle came with a pair of Weaver bases, but I want a full, one pice, Picatinny rail. A full rail will be stronger, more precise, and more versatile; and with a detachable box magazine system, theres little disadvantage (with a blind magazine you want a 2 piece, to give you more clearance under the scope to load and unload).

If I had unlimited budget, I'd just buy a badger 20moa rail, and badger tactical rings (you can probably get away with medium rings, but I'm going to go fo high to give a little extra clearance to the rail). Unfortunately, that would run around $300... nearly as much as I paid for the rifle itself; and weigh almost a pound altogether. 

Thankfully, EGW makes a perfectly acceptable 20moa rail, and it sells for $40:

And Weaver makes a reasonable set of six bolt rings, that also sells for $40:

Would I run these on a 1000 yard gun? absolutely not. Am I reasonably certain they're going to hold zero for this gun? Absolutely.

Now, do I expect 1moa performance from this gun at 700 yards... Well, it'd be nice, but with the factory featherweight barrel, I doubt it. I've only shot the thing out to 300 yards, and it gave me a 4" group with the nasty stock, mediocre trigger, crap glass, crap mounts... so with the upgrades, maybe maybe not. I think it'll do better than 2moa, maybe better than 1.5moa.

I've also grabbed one of those barrel resonator donuts to try out. Some guns they work great on, some not. We'll see.

But either way, I'm pretty damned happy with the state of the gun. The new stock is great, the new scope is great, the new trigger is great... if it shoots at 1.5moa or better at 400 yards I'll be happy. If it does it at 700 I'll be thrilled.

And of course, what I'm really thrilled about, is the price:

• Base gun - $300
• Stock - $80
• Bottom metal - $290
• Trigger - $90
• Scope - $450
• Rail - $40
• Rings - $40
  
  
• Total rifle - $760
• Total optics and mounts - $540
• Total system -  $1300

Given that a factory rifle of similar quality with a detachable box mag, would run me at least $1250, and a scope for it another $850 for the same scope new... or $1600 for the nightforce I'd probably buy if I was spending that much anyway...

Or to put it another way, for the same money I'd be getting say, a Howa 1500 with a Vortex 4-16x50. Not a bad solution for the money certainly, but I'd rather the mag, trigger, and scope I've got.

So moneywise, not bad at all.

Hell, at that money, I don't mind throwing the factory barrel away and spending $400 on a really nice Krieger... AFTER boomershoot.

Now I just hope it's under 9.5lbs. With that big scope on there, that might be a pipe dream.

Next post on this topic, well go over the actual build process and pictures (and I'll weigh the thing).

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:

"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:

1. the .308 Winchester (.308win)
   
2. the .300 Winchester magnum (.300wm)
3. the .300 Winchester short magnum (.300wsm, the ballistic twin of the .300wm)
   
4. the .300 Remington Ultra Mag (.300 rum)
5. the .300-338, which is also known as the .300 lapua magnum (.300 lapua)
   

Note: some might include a sixth, the .30-378, but it is substantially similar to the .300-338 as to be covered ballistically by the same entry.

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)

To push 210gr at 2550fps from a 28" barrel.

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

• 2000 cases, $1,400
• 10,000 bullets and primers, $4,500
• 65 pounds of powder, $1,430.
• 2 barrel, $1200.

Total .308win = $8,530
Per round .308win = $0.85

$0.85 a round total cost, for serious match grade shooting... that's a great deal all around.

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"
.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

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.

.308 win, 210gr Berger VLD
.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

Honestly... 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.

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"
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

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.

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

So, even with a best case estimate on .300 lapua, and worst cases on .300wm and .300rum, it would cost about as much as shooting 10,000 rounds of .300wm AND 10,000 rounds of .300 RUM COMBINED; to shoot 10,000 rounds of .300 lapua.

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.

So, in comparison to .300wm, you get 300more ftlbs muzzle energy, 100 more ftlbs at 1000 yards, and 75 yards more effective range from a .300rum; and 600more ftlbs muzzle energy, 200 more ftlbs at 1000 yards, and 150 yards more effective range from a .300 Lapua...

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.

Compared to our baseline .308, that's  112" less drop at 1000 yards with 1100ftlbs more energy, 340" less drop at 1500 yards with 607 ftlbs more energy, it's got a 675 yard range advantage at 1000ftlbs, and a 450 yard subsonic range advantage... however, this is where things get interesting... it has almost 500" more drop at its subsonic range, and only sports a 300ftlb energy differential for it.

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

Damn... $3.10 a shot, even using handloads....

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):

• .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.

 And actually, the ammunition costs are pretty comparable to the .338 lapua; with factory match grade loads running between $6 and $9 in bulk; but the .50 eats barrels much less aggressively, with barrel life running somewhere around 2000 rounds... though 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 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
  

So, $3.69 a shot, including the barrel life... Not much more than the .338, and the ballistics...

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.

Thats actually pretty damned impressive, with a 100 yard range advantage to subsonic over the .50bmg; with just 400 less ftlbs of energy to show for it (again, this is a G1 model estimate. See my note on G1 vs G7 ballistic estimates below)... Given that the projectile is not much more than half the mass of the .50, that's saying something.

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
  

So, at $3.64 a shot including barrel life, you're getting considerably better accuracy and precision over the .50,  or the .338 (including a range advantage) for not much difference in cost. It's easier to shoot than either, and the rifles are about the same price.

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 modeled with the G7 estimates:

• .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.

You can see, looking at the numbers in the sections above, and the numbers here; that at 1000 and 1500 yards, the difference between the two drag models, isn't all that great, but at 2000 yards plus, it's huge.

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...