Best Rifle Of WWII

[Jank]

"I repeat it doesn't emmidiately improve accuracy, however it does so over time, the benefit being that the action and barrell won't skid around within the wooden stock"

Soren, it does immediately improve accuracy as the pressure point is immediately relieved and the effect on hormonic stabilization is immediate. You said that the action and barrel "won't skid around within the wooden stock"? Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Can you cite any discussion antwhere on the web about floating the barrel not having an immediate effect on accuracy? (Perhaps someone floating their barrel and wondering why their accuracy hasn't improved?)

"I disagree, a higher velocity does generally increase accuracy. Its common knowledge in my former business infact"

In your former business? What, your paper route when you were 12? I am not sure what you mean by "higher velocity." Do you mean higher than the lowest velocity you can achieve without running the risk of a hangfire? Then yes.

I will just repeat what I said as you may be saying something different, "The most accurate loads are generally not the highest velocity loads. Look at any reloading site that tracks the group size with the listed loads and you will see that the most accurate loads are amost never those with the highest velocity."

There are plenty of reloading sites on the web. Look it up for yourself. Most reloading manuals have a good primer on ballistics. I suggest you read one or two. You can also read tips on how to make your rifle more accurate and will notice that floating the barrel is probably the most common suggestion. You will also not the absence of any mention of it taking time after floating the barrel to notice an improvement in accuracy.

"PS: the Gewehr 98 is infact generally more accurate than the K98k, and since there's no difference between the two rifles, besides barrel lenght, only muzzle velocity can be the colbrit here."

I am not aware of any field tests on these two guns and thus am not in a position to accept your assertion and agree or disagree with your conclusions. If true, there can be lots of reasons for that. Different sights, different stocks that make contact with the barrel, different production plants with different machinery (better rifling), etc. I just don't know.

Late last year, Gun Test Magazine did tests between the Savage 10 FP with a 20" barrel and the Savage 12 BVSS with a 26" barrel. Both are chambered in .308. The 20" barreled model was more accurate. This frankly surprised me. It may be due to variations in the individual guns tested. I don't know. At any rate, at a minimum, it would in and of itself tend to refute your conclusion above.

 

[Soren]

With normal rifles, the barrel rests in contact with stock. In particular if the stock is manufactured of wood, environmental conditions or operational use may shift alignment of the stock, which may cause the barrel to shift its alignment slightly over time as well, altering the projectile flightpath and impact point.

A free-floating barrel is one in which the barrel and stock are designed to not touch at any point along the barrel's length. The barrel is attached to its receiver, which is attached to the stock, but the barrel "floats freely" without any contact with other gun parts, other than the rifle's sights. This minimizes the possible mechanical pressure distortions of the barrel alignment.

 

[Jank]

From Wikipedia (a source for quick information when a person doesn't know what they are talking about but wants to sound like they do):

Free-floating barrel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With normal rifles, the barrel rests in contact with stock. In particular if the stock is manufactured of wood, environmental conditions or operational use may shift alignment of the stock, which may cause the barrel to shift its alignment slightly over time as well, altering the projectile flightpath and impact point.

A free-floating barrel is one in which the barrel and stock are designed to not touch at any point along the barrel's length. The barrel is attached to its receiver, which is attached to the stock, but the barrel "floats freely" without any contact with other gun parts, other than the rifle's sights. This minimizes the possible mechanical pressure distortions of the barrel alignment.

The text you wrote didn't sound like you and I had a hunch. Apparently correct. Let me guess, you just forgot to reference the citation right?

 

[Jank]

Double post which I have deleted.

 

[Soren]

Oh don't get so grudgy when you're proven wrong Jank, it wasn't meant to sound like me, was meant as a quote.. Was actually not my entention to post it without ""'s, and I wasn't even finished with that post before you posted yours !

But like I said, only over time will free floating prove beneficial.

 

[Jank]

Exactly how have I been proven wrong? When the contact point and pressure is removed, there is an immediate affect on accuracy.

Again, from by post above:

Soren, it does immediately improve accuracy as the pressure point is immediately relieved and the effect on hormonic stabilization is immediate. You said that the action and barrel "won't skid around within the wooden stock"? Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Can you cite any discussion anywhere on the web about floating the barrel not having an immediate effect on accuracy? (Perhaps someone floating their barrel and wondering why their accuracy hasn't improved?)

Did Wikipedia inform you about the action and barrel "skidding around" too?

 

[Soren]

Thats your claim Jank, and I dare you to prove it.

Your whole contact and "hormonic" relief theory is ridiculous and is absolutely not the reason why free-floating barrels are used on precision rifles, the real reason is so the stock wont deform around the barrel and action, causing like the quote said "the barrel to shift its alignment slightly over time as well, altering the projectile flightpath and impact point". And about the action "skidding" inside the stock, well I've experienced this with some old rifles, and this will affect accuracy quite abit. I remember on my very first rifle I had to constantly check wether the stock was fastened properly to the action.

 

[Soren]

Here's a rifle with a free floating barrel, the Blaser 93:

 

[Jank]

"Your whole contact and "hormonic" relief theory is ridiculous"

RSI - Barrel Harmonics

Barrel harmonics can be altered by the use of either a weight or through pressure (contact) with the barrel Einstein.

Ooh look! A cheapo, run of the mill $500 hunting rifle with a free floated barrel too. Free floated barrels are pretty standard today and not reserved for high end tactical and varmint rifles.

Savage Arms Hunter Series Model 11G

I feel like I'm arguing with a 12 year old so why don't we just agree to disagree. Clearly you know far more on this subject than I do.

 

[Soren]

"Builders of accurate rifles agree if the barrel's movement can't be eliminated, the next best thing is that it move consistently with each shot. That's why good shooting rifles have stiff barrels and their actions are firmly bedded in the stock with nothing touching the barrel in front of the receiver (free floating)."

There's your skidding..

Lesson for the future: next time read your own links Jank...

 

[Jank]

"There's your skidding.."

??? Huh? Skidding? Soren the next time you talk to someone who actually knows something about this, be sure and mention that your action and barrel "skid" and report back on the puzzled look on their face OK?

The barrel movement that you are referencing ("if the barrel's movement can't be eliminated, the next best thing is that it move consistently with each shot") is the harmonic movement you moron. What the hell is "skidding"?

Finding the "sweet spot" (sorry, not sure you will find that one on Wikipedia) entails using weights and/or relieving pressure by free floating to standardize the wave pulse such that when the bullet exits each time, the barrel will be similarly situated along the pulse which will result in tighter groups.

I don't expect you to understand any of this as you won't find a nutshell explanation you can quickly find on Wikipedia and pass off as your own.

Soren, doctors, lawyers, accountants, aircraft and and gun enthusiasts all have a special vocabulary that is tapped into in discussing a relevant subject. Unfortunately, its just too difficult to fake with ease. When you talk about "faster spin" as an advantage due to an increase in velocity or "reduced power" loads or the "skidding" of your action and barrel, you betray your profound ignorance.

I'm sorry you had to hear it from me in the midst of this heated discussion.

 

[Soren]

Feeling confident enough to call others morons are we Jank ?

The skidding I'm talking about is the action moving within the stock ! Its quite common with old rifles. Like the quote says: "their actions are firmly bedded in the stock".

And yes I understand completely the issue of Harmonics, however we were discussing the effect of free floating barrels have on accuracy, consistent harmonics is something both full stock and frre floating barrel's share, however one will suffer with time, the other won't.

Oh, and as to gun experts, well I wouldn't call myself that, not even a big enthusiast, but I've worked with guns (Which means shooting them and taking them apart) for over 20 years and have learned my fair share... I'm not a professor on the subject though.

 

[Ajax]

Although I am a big fan of British ingenuity, guns are somthing they aren't too good at. I do know the M1 Garand was simple with a good rate of fire and easily available. In a large scale war, that's just what the doctor ordered. My vote goes to our waffle-eating cousins across the water.

 

[Jank]

"consistent harmonics is something both full stock and frre floating barrel's share"

"full stock"? This is what I mean Soren. Do you really understand what free floating even is Soren? I notice the picture of the Blaser you posted. Do you think that rifles with "full stocks" aren't free floated? I have free floated three rifles. It entailed taking sandpaper and just sanding a bit of the stock making contact with the barrel. They were "full stock" rifles too. Many standard "full stock" sporting rifles come free floated from the factory. I linked to a very cheap one for you. So what exactly did youy mean by "both full stock and free floated barrels"?

Savage 11G with free floated barrel:

"I'm not a gun professor though."

I'm making a note of that.

 

[Soren]

What I meant was obviously free floating barrel's and barrel's which are not, all have somewhat consistent harmonics (Unless something isn't fastened properly), however over time the free floating barrel is the more accurate as nothing is in contact with it. I must admit I'm very skeptical about the éffect free floating the barrel on the old military rifles will have, esp. since I know good shooters who have done this and not achieved results much different from when it was a full stock - I'm talking litterally using a whole new stock for the action (Originally a K98k), a perfect fit, barrell hanging freely, yet no noticeable improvement on accuracy - and this guy is a good shot, I've seen him shoot 4" tin cans at 800m with his .338 M-98 Magnum, which btw AFAIK doesn't have a free floating barrel. This is not to say accuracy got worse though, cause it didn't, but neither did it improve.

 

[Soren]

"Pressure on various points along its length from high spots in the barrel channel cut into the stock can cause the barrel to bend ever so slightly as it heats up, which naturally may cause bullets to fly someplace other than where the previous shot(s) went.

Since a floated barrel doesn't touch the stock along its length, that variable is removed from the equation. Sometimes it works to improve repeatable accuracy, and sometimes it doesn't. Floating is at its best when used with rifles that have relatively heavy (large diameter) "bull" barrels, because they are less flexible than slimmer barrels. Lighter "sporter" barrels are less stable, and may flex enough during the shot that accuracy will suffer."

Exactly what my experience tells me.

 

[renrich]

Have any of you folks seen anything about a new AR type weapon in a caliber 280? The bullet I believe is actually .277(the old 270 win) I saw it being fired I think in burst fire mode and it did not seem to have excessive recoil. Of course the case is not the 270 win case. Seems like the bullet was 140 gr. They may be on to something.

 

[Jank]

I believe you are referring to the proposed replacement of the 5.56mm NATO with the 6.8SPC. There have been reports circulating that the 5.56 doesn't put the bad guys down in solid center of mass hits as it should and the 6.8 appears to have more impressive terminal ballistics. It fires a significantly heavier projectile (115gr) that is slower but doesn't rely on high velocity for effective terminal effects. (The M4 has a short barrel which robs the 5.56 of its high velocity anyway.)

I understand that it is not quite as impressive a performer though as the 6.5 Grendel which has been looked at as well. In short though, there does not appear to be any planned adoption of the new cartridge. For now, the military is using the heavier Mk 262 77gr bullet (as opposed to the standard M 855 62gr bullet) for the special forces that is giving better terminal effects especially with their shorter 14.5" barrels.

I have had my eye on the 6.8 put out by Rock River Arms but I am planning to wait and see if the cartridge rises in popularity first.

Welcome to Rock River Arms' Online Show Room

 

[renrich]

Thanks Jank. Used to do a lot of handloading and always thought that a bullet of about cal. 270 ( believe that the British were heading there at one time) in an intermediate sized case would have made a good assault rifle round. I have handloaded the 284 Win case with the bullet seated all the way out (in a custom chambered rifle) and chronographed a 140 gr bullet at a MV of 3100 fps from a 22 in barrel. However that is too hot for an assault rifle load but I like the fat case and sharp shoulder of the 284 Win round. How about a case with about the capacity of a 7x57 but fat and sharp shouldered with a 140 gr .277 bullet at about 2600 fps. The bullet would have a good Bal Coef and good Sec Den and the overall cartridge length would be short. Would the recoil be too great for a 3 shot burst fire mode?

 

[Jank]

The constraint appears to be interfacing with the existing AR platform and the established preference for being able to carry a large numbers of rounds. The 6.8 SPC is a modified .30 Remington with a similar overall cartridge length and diameter as the 5.56 NATO.

This makes for a simple modification of the AR (a new bolt is required). The cartridge also fits into standard sized magazines.

The 7x57 and other "fat case" rounds are dimensionally too large to easily switch out in the AR platform. The 5.56mm measures .376, the 6.8SPC .421 and the 7x57 .472. She's just too big. In addition, fewer rounds can be carried due to the larger size of the cartridge and additional weight considerations.

The short, fat cartridges (the .300 WSM is probably the most popular of the lot) have picked up a lot of popularity recently for the inherent accuracy of a shorter powder column.

"Would the recoil be too great for a 3 shot burst fire mode?"

I guess that depends on what you mean by too great. The 5.56mm is absolutely a dream when attempting pin point fire in full automatic mode. There is very litle muzzle rise. I have fired an M-14 (7.62 x 51) in full automatic mode and frankly, I think the recoil is just to great in relation to the 5.56mm. The 7x57mm would have recoil very similar to but less than the M-14 in a rifle of similar weight. A cartridge sending a 140gr bullet downrange at 2,600fps is difficult to say. I think three round controlled bursts might be OK but that is just an opinion rendered without running figures on a recoil calculator.