fastest 338 caliber?Build advice?

Nothing to get wrong Kirby: I take all donations of Weatherby brass. Rather have the Norma brass, though Norma makes the Weatherby brass it appears to be of better quality. Plus it is a buck a piece cheaper! This project started when some gave me 30-378 brass. Sure glad they didn't check the price!

I will p.m. you.

Neal
 
Kirby,

The number (3250 fps for 300 SMK) I used was the one that you quoted on 2-11-08 in a discussion about .338 caliber comparisons...... I merely used your number from that exact post as a standard for comparison during our testing of the HATS and the post I made in the above comparison...... If you run the numbers you quoted back then with what I posted from our testing, you will see what I am saying.......... All of our .338 test guns had the same 30" barrel length that you referenced in your 2-11-08 posting so getting a good comparison was just a simple task of developing loads and testing them against your 2-11-08 published data......

You may have missed it in my original post, but I understand and did mention that if one used the larger cheytac-based case with the HATS, that it would then again jump ahead in the comparison....... But, it takes much more powder to do it with the larger chamberings and I don't think it will help extend barrel life in the long run and it may even shorten it to some extent. Hopefully for the folks that have the bigger cased guns, it will not be an issue. We live in interesting ballistic times in that the standard that was in place on 2-11-08 can now be eclipsed by a smaller case using a new style bullet and less powder....

On the 265 grain Gen I bullets that you shot, the advertised chronographed instrumental BC from us was only a mere .770 or specifically almost the same as a 300 SMK at .768. However, if you got .88-.89 with the Gen I 265s from drop tests then that is a good indication of how rough and inaccurate the drop tests are for deriving accurate BC values since the atmospheric conditions and the accuracy of the gun are all equal factors in the final BC value when calculated by measuring drops. But, since the Gen I .338s will not be manufactured again due to a new and more BC friendly die being placed into service, those numbers are history. Even the expansion testing you performed with them is of no use now since the Gen IIs are completely different in geometry but the same in components.... BTW, how did you test the expansion characteristics of the Gen I 265s?

However, the Gen IIs are much more impressive and at least one of your shooting sticks was used to help prove it..... Specifically, at least one of your guns that you built did quite well on paper and on live game with them when shot by your customer at 800+ yards. I believe that they were launching at 3440 and at 800 yards the groups were very small. I was not there to witness it, but I believe the gent and the groups looked to be in the range of 2" give or take. As a matter of fact, your customer was so impressed he asked me if the insane BCs were real or not. I assured him that his results were real. Like we have stated before, we will get some chronographed instrumental BCs performed when the next batch of test bullets arrive. We do have a rough idea of the ranges where they should fall and those are the rough numbers I posted earlier..... We have developed some rules of thumb that are quite accurate in predicting BCs when comparing different bullet weights and configurations of the same ogive design.... Again, those are the rough numbers I posted earlier above..... FWIW, we are sort of in a quandry deciding if pursuing a 325 grain offering would be viable or in demand since the planned 300 grainer should come in very close to 1.100 and probably even exceed it. Do you think there would be a large enough market for a 325 grain .338 with a BC north of 1.100 to justify fooling around with it?

As far as expansion is concerned, all the results we have on live animals and the results that customers have gotten on live animals even out past 800 yards, indicate deadly energy transfer, excellent expansion with large exit wounds and best of all, each animal was dropped with one shot. Specifically, less drift, less drop and more pop. Most were with the Gen II configuration, but one Elk was killed with the Gen I configuration bullet launched from a Snipe-Tac built by Mr Dave Viers who I believe was the originator of the Cheytac-based case for a .338 chambering.

Again, thanks for taking your time away from your business, family and other "interests" as well as for confirming my point about the HATS when the same length barrels are used. Specifically, if the bigger cheytac-based chamberings are not using them, then the smaller Lapua Improved chamberings can use the HATS and equal or surpass the performance of the larger cheytac-based chamberings shooting standard conventional bullets such as the 300 grain SMK......... That was the whole intent and gist of my original post.....

In these progressive ballistic times in which we live, it seems to make more sense to first choose the bullet and then decide how much powder one wishes to burn and THEN select the case.

Good luck in 2009.

Lightvarmint
 
LV

That's the second post you suggested selecting a bullet to build a rifle around. I see where you are coming from but that seems dangerous to me. I would bet there are a few people here that built guns around Wildcat bullets that are not very happy right now. Say I chose to build a 338 for the 265 HAT bullet and picked the lapua case.

#1 I throat it long to allow the AL tipped bullets to seat to the bottom of the neck. Then after shooting I find it just won't shoot well enough what then? It's setup wrong for the the 250 SMK and the 300 will be slower than I wanted and have a lower BC

#2 It shoots great I get real excited and then the one maker either changes the bullet design or stops making it all together?

I know it's the price you pay for being on the cutting edge. I think you just have to consider the number of bullet options and a fall back plan when investing in a rifle.
 
LV,

You are correct, at that time, that was my standard load. It was however because of the brass we were using, not because that is the limit of the rifle or chambering. Let me explain.

When I designed my 338 AM, we had access to the amazing TTI brass. That brass was very strong, in fact, I would honestly say it was as strong as the current 338 Lapua brass, amazing stuff. With that brass, I was driving the 300 gr SMK to 3500 fps out of my heavy rifle. My XHS rifles were getting 3400 fps easily with the same bullet with that brass.

Within a year, TTI brass went away, no way to get it anymore, very sad. Jamison international had just started making this brass. They were already using the 505 Gibbs so they just took that same case and necked it down to 408 CT. For Chey Tac standards of pressure, these worked acceptably well as they had no intent to reload the brass.

For handloaders. Even light loads for the 338 AM were opening primer pockets prematurely, sometimes on the first firing. That was the start of Jamison trying to get the brass made to higher standards. They worked with many of us using the 408 CT for a parent case for wildcat rounds. They took some of our advice and some they did not. In the end, they beefed up the case head thickness, tightened the primer pocket a bit and also changed the alloy in the brass to help support higher pressures.

This made a big difference. Now we were able to get back to around 3300 fps with max loads. It was at this time that I posted the numbers you list and it is true, at that time, I felt 3250 fps was a very comfortable load level with this bullet weight.

I then started working with Jamison to make my own brass with my correct headstamp. I was not willing to invest the money though on a case that would not take more pressure. The standard Jamison 408 CT brass would allow 3-4 firings at 3300 fps max. I wanted more and wanted more velocity if possible. I asked that they tighten the primer pockets up so they were 2 thou smaller then even their newly designed primer pocket just to get as many firings as possible from the cases.

I will be honest, those new cases that I had made, have all gone to customers. I have yet to do any serious load development with them as I am sending them all out to customers and letting them report on the results. They are telling me 3400 fps is practical and 3350 fps is very comfortable with the new brass which makes me very happy. Case life is not as long as the TTI cases were but its usible for what we want to do and much better then is has been since we lost the TTI brass.

So, yes, you are correct, I said those were my numbers but those numbers were limited to the brass we had to use, not the max performance of this chambering. As you can see, with current brass, the numbers I list are accurate and practical and still higher performance then the smaller 338s with the super bullets. Its a moot point, put the high BC bullets in the big 338s and the discussion is over again.

In my numbers, I was using the BC that you offered for the HAT bullets as you had tested them much more then I have. IF the bullets are structurally the same but just have a different Ogive, for the most part, velocity potential will be the same so in my numbers I just used your .91 BC value to give you the benefit of the doubt.

From your own words, one of my rifles is already getting good results with the Gen II Hats loading them to 3440 fps.

How does a 338 AI compare to that???? It does not in any way and to my knowledge, that load in the 338 AM was a relatively mild load. Mild pressure and 200 fps more velocity with same bullet weight......

As far as a 325 gr HAT with a BC in the 1.1 range. On paper, it sounds great, only problem in the real world is that a bullet of this length will cause some problems unless a non conventional bullet design is used. Baring surface is huge, fast twist barrels are needed for this length barrel. The combination of these two will result in larger variations because of temp changes and other environmental changes then a more conventional bullet length and weight.

I am not saying they would not be extremely accurate and amazing ballistically. The only problem is you will see dramatically wider variations from environmental shifts.

To solve this, if you could do something unconventional, such as a double diameter bullet(bore rider like) or wasp waist the bullet to reduce baring surface, this would help alot but it would also complicate bullet manufacturing and final bullet cost. That is why solid bullets are best for this extreme high BC bullet because its easy to cut relief cuts or band the baring surface to reduce baring surface.

Other problems, when you take a lead core bullet that is that long, you will run into a problem I have nicknamed "bullet wringing". This is when you take a very long lead core bullet and drive it into a barrel with a very fast twist. My theory, what happens is that when the bullet engraves the land, the front portion of the bullet begins to rotate but the rear section of the bullet has enough length and mass to resist this rotation and while the front begins to rotate, the rear does not and the section in the middle will weaken the bond between the jacket and core.

This probably happens to some degree with all longer conventional bullets but at the velocities we are working at and the extreme length of the bullet and fast twist, its much more dramatic. In worst cases, the bullet will fail in flight, in best case, accuracy will suffer to some degree.

How to cure that, well, really only two ways. One way that really helps is to seat the bullets hard into the lands which gets the bullet rotating the very instant it starts down the bore which will greatly reduce "bullet Wringing".

Number 2 is to use a very heavy jacket that can help support these forces. Only problem there is that unless you use a tapered jacket, expansion will be very limted. You can also bond the core to the jacket which will help some but is not a real cure and it costs alot more to do. Just my opinion on such matters.

When I tested the HATs, I shot into a line of media consisting of a water soaked phone book, followed by a sheet of 3/4" oak backed with 4 water filled milk jugs and then backed by soft sand.

First couple shots were at 500 yards. First shot was stopped in the first water jug and fraged severely. Second shot went through all four of the milk jugs. Third shot did not make it to target.

Fourth and fifth were very similiar to the second shot. Full penetration with little expansion.

I then moved to longer range. It was roughly 950 yards. All shots fired, 6 total except one showed very little penetration if any and one shot did not land on target.

Accuracy wise, they held 1/2 moa easily at 950 yards. No problem there. I read your results on the Gen II results and it sounds like the bugs are getting worked out. There are always bugs to work with and work out. ANytime you are pushing things past the current established max performance you are in new ground and speed bumps are to be expected. I think the main issue with the HAT bullets is that they were pushed pretty hard really before any serious testing had been done. Had their release been held up until the Gen II bullets had been tested, I the end result would have been in much more bullet sales and less heated discussions on the board.

I can not say who the first was that necked the 408 CT down to 338. To be honest I would bet it was no one here on LRH. I do not know if Dave did it before Bruce Baer but I do know both of them played with it long before I did and I have always given them credit for that. I just took a good thing and added more volume to push things a bit harder in velocity, that is all. I have never and will never claim to be the originator of this idea, that would be silly, I do feel I have added to the relm of big 338 magnums with the 338 AM, 338 AX and now the 338 Ultra Maxx which was designed by the urging of Joecool here on LRH.
 
LV

That's the second post you suggested selecting a bullet to build a rifle around. I see where you are coming from but that seems dangerous to me. I would bet there are a few people here that built guns around Wildcat bullets that are not very happy right now. Say I chose to build a 338 for the 265 HAT bullet and picked the lapua case.

#1 I throat it long to allow the AL tipped bullets to seat to the bottom of the neck. Then after shooting I find it just won't shoot well enough what then? It's setup wrong for the the 250 SMK and the 300 will be slower than I wanted and have a lower BC

#2 It shoots great I get real excited and then the one maker either changes the bullet design or stops making it all together?

I know it's the price you pay for being on the cutting edge. I think you just have to consider the number of bullet options and a fall back plan when investing in a rifle.

LL,

I realize where you are coming from and your concerns. I also realize that this thread is about pushing the envelope to the limit and my above comments are based on doing just that.

With that said, when one finds something that works well and pushes the envelope that is the time to stock up on components to ensure that you have a barrel life supply or enough to supply all of your barrels that you use.

For instance.

When I decided to get into benchrest, I noticed that everyone was scratching for good brass back in the mid 1990s...... As soon as the brass became available, I purchased 7000 pieces..... Now I don't have to worry about brass.

Next, I got the 600 yard bug and purchased a new 6mm Dasher bench gun. Since the original purchase, I have added three new additional barrels to my barrel inventory. So when Obama got elected and I got concerned about supply of shooting components, I then purchased an addtitional 70,000 primers and 144 lbs of powder..... Also, when copper started moving up in price this last year, I got concerned and purchased 8000 bullets on sale for the 600 yard gun and now I don't have to worry about barrel supply, bullet supply, primer supply or powder supply .

I can only give you the advice that I am willing to follow myself and that is to stock up when you find something that works. I am sure there are folks out there like Buffalo Bob who stocked up on components when he found something he liked in the Wildcat bullet line.

Finally, as Kirby has said on many occassions, just because you have the barrel throated for a specific bullet, it does not mean it will not work with others. For instance in my 338 Lapua Improved, the 300 grain SMK only requires 4 clicks vertical and 2 clicks windage to adjust the scope from the HAT 400 yard zero to the 300 SMK 400 yard zero using the same barrel.

Lightvarmint
 
Lots of good advice on this thread!

LV, what do the 338 HATs cost? I originally wanted a 338 Lapua improved, but a 30-338 Lapua improved is looking pretty good, I could use 208 Amaxes for practice and your 210 HATs for hunting, and practice would be much cheaper with the Amaxes over 300 grain SMK's for the 338. What do you think?
 
lots of good advice on this thread!

Lv, what do the 338 hats cost? I originally wanted a 338 lapua improved, but a 30-338 lapua improved is looking pretty good, i could use 208 amaxes for practice and your 210 hats for hunting, and practice would be much cheaper with the amaxes over 300 grain smk's for the 338. What do you think?


touchdown !!!!!!!!!!
 
Kirby,

Hello again, I just ran the numbers on JBM at 82 feet above sea level using your new brass performance value at 3400 fps with the 300 SMK and compared it to the HATS out of my 338 Lapua Improved using Eddybo's BC of .910..... Remember, I have not tested the BC as of yet, but Eddybo has numbers that work in one of your rifles so we will use it for comparison........


338 AM with 300 SMK

Range----Velocity---kinetic energy--drift-----drop (400 yard zero)

0000-----3400------7699.2 -----------------

500-------2749.0---5033.2-----------8.8"------9.2"

700-------2513.9---4209.1----------17.9"-----41.8"

1000------2182.3---3171.7----------38.9"---133.4"

1500------1685.2---1891.4----------99.0"---444.7"

2000------1286.7---1102.6---------201.6"--1070.3"

2500------1043.9-----725.8---------354.6"--2227.5"

3000--------919.9-----563.6---------549.4"--4183.8"


338 Lapua Improved with 265 grain HAT

Range-----Velocity--kinetic energy-drift-----drop (400 yard zero)

0000-------3245-----6195.0 --------------

500--------2708.0--4314.5-----------7.7"-----9.7"

700--------2510.6--3708.3---------15.7"----43.8"

1000-------2230.3--2926.4----------33.8"---137.4"

1500-------1804.7--1916.1----------84.2"---442.8"

2000-------1442.3--1223.9---------166.8"---1020.0"

2500-------1170.8---806.5----------290.0"---2021.5"

3000-------1011.8---602.3----------453.9"---3660.1"


So, as you can see, the 338 Lapua Improved using the HATS (with Eddybo's BC values) and using about 40 grains less powder, out performs the Cheytac-based case with 300 SMKs in every catagory starting at 1500 yards unless the cheytac-based case is using the HAT bullets. This is not too bad for the "little" Lapua case.

--Specifically, the wind drift is always in favor of the HAT load in the Lapua case.

--The velocity favors the HAT in the Lapua case starting at about 750 yards and then on out until it hits the ground.

--Kinetic Energy and drop favors the HAT in the Lapua case starting at about 1450 yards and continues until ground impact.

Based on this comparison model it looks like the 338 Lapua Improved with the HATS is a much better long range performer than the Cheytac-based case with the 300 SMKs and again it uses about 35% less powder to do it.............

Additionally, it seems that all the horse power advantage that is gained by the much larger case is all gone by 750 yards for velocity and 1500 yards for energy due to less efficiency of the 300 SMK.

So, as previously stated, unless the shooter with the Cheytac-based case is using the HATS, a "little" case such as the .338 Lapua Improved using the HATS will surpass its performance with much less powder......

I guess the morale of all this number crunching is to use the HATS for LESS DRIFT, LESS DROP and MORE POP!

Lightvarmint
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Forgot to mention I have to use .820 bc with the 300 gr SMK at these velocities and my elevation to get drop chart to match up with actual trajectory over 2K yards.

Sorry for forgetting to put that in.
 
Ever seen one of those little ankle biting dogs, yap, yap, yap. Ok, we all see you, we all know you're important. Now please go chase a car.

Before anyone asks, I can appreciate the irony in my posting such a response.
 
Last edited:
I guess the way I look at it, the 300 gr SMK is THE standard in long range 338 cal performance. It works, it works very well, its heavy and has a very high SD. I have never had a problem with this bullet as far as penetration or expansion. At times it may overexpand a bit but because of its 300 gr bullet weight, its got some to spear.

Accuracy is amazing, consistancy is not always the best but an hour on the bench and you can short out 500 bullets so that is a moot point. They are easy to get most of the time and for todays standards, they are relatively inexpensive which is not a bad thing when you have 4 or 5 big 338 rifles using them.

I always welcome improvements in ballistic performance, anyone that has read any of my posts know how I like to push the envelope and encourage anyone else to do the same as long as they do it in a safe manner.

Are the HAT bullets a ballistic improvement over the 300 gr SMK, certainly. Are then an improvement terminally??? THat has yet to be seen, just not enough data in the books to say they are the equal to a 300 gr SMK. Especially on heavier game such as elk.

The 300 gr SMK has put down many thousands of elk and while there are some rare reports of bullet failure, these are few and far between and in several of the instances I have heard about, pilot error had more to do with the problems then bullet performance.

I welcome the HAT bullets, I think they are on the right track to what we need to take the next step. I will be honest, Having shot both the HAT and the prototype Wildcat bullets, I feel the Wildcat was much more consistant in expansion over a wide range of velocities and had a significantly higher BC as well with no increase in baring surface. Just a more aggressive design.

Some say a bit less aggressive design is a more consistantly accurate bullet. Perhaps, but if we have the ability to make a mid to upper .9 BC bullet that will shoot 1 moa at +3000 yards, why not push ahead to that level. Perhaps the issue is manufacturing ease.

I guess that when I hear comments like, "If you use the HAT bullets in the smaller 338 magnums, they will equal or exceed the performance of the 408 based 338 wildcats." It makes me smile a bit. Certainly LV is pushing a product he believes in. No problem there, but the VAST majority of shooters out there WILL be using the 300 gr SMK in their smaller 338 magnum rifles, that is just a fact. Even if the HAT bullets become mainstream.

I have been in this business long enough to know that the top level shooter will shoot what works best of gives him the most performance, no matter the price. I also know that these guys make up a very small percentage of the shooting and hunting population and the rest of them will likely see the HAT bullets, like them, possibly even try some but if they shoot any volume at all, they will not drop $165 on 100 bullets when they can get 500, 300 gr SMKs for another $60. In this day and age, economics will effect bullet sales for the average shooter.

And as far as the 338-408 CT shooters, I believe they will probably be more likely to purchase the HAT bullets over the guy shooting a higher volume shooting, smaller 338 magnum simply because the 408 bases shooter will likely not be shooting nearly as many bullets per session which will allow him to justify the much more expensive bullet.

I see this all the time with 50 BMG shooters. Sure they have an accuracy load developed with the 750 gr A-max which will run around the same price as the HAT bullet a piece, but when they take the friends out to plink, there will be some surplus 647s or 700 gr APs in the cases and they will shoot many dozens of those for every one A-Max they shoot.

Again, these are the average shooter, the cream of the crop will likely never put an AP projo through their fine rifle but again these are a very small number of shooters in our sport.

Finally, just want to stress my point. There will be far more shooters out there using the 300 gr SMK in their 338 magnums no matter what case its using compared to the HAT bullets. Its true the HAT bullets gives the smaller 338 magnums a boost in performance ballistically but that same advantage is also given to the 408 based shooters.

The long term performance record of the HAT bullets is just starting. They started a bit shaky and are coming on better now as any custom bullet will do. But to say that they are a huge improvement over the 300 gr SMK just because they have a higher BC is in my opinion getting ahead of our selves. Lets get a few hunting seasons under our belts and a good number of truely unbiased hunters using them and reporting on them before we crwon them the wonder bullet for the 338 cal.

No flame to LV, certainly none to Mr. Henson. I am impressed with his vision to push the envelope. Just wish he would come on and talk to us about his products more often is all.

Also want to hear more thrid party reports on these bullets. That is where the we will learn the most about these bullets from. That takes time, no other way to get that information. Time will tell.

For now, every 338 RUM, 338 Edge, 338 Ultra Maxx, 338 Allen Xpress, 338 Kahn or 338 Allen Magnum that comes out of my shop WILL be accuracy tested with the 300 gr SMK because I know exactly what this bullet has done, will do today and will also do tomorrow. Simply put, it flat out works and it works extremely well so that is why it is and will likely remain the standard of long range performance for the 338 magnums.

No reason not to keep pushing the envelope though.
 
Kirby,

I must apologize that I did not state the standard conditions for the above numbers.....

BOTH sets of numbers were using the same altitude and atmospheric conditions..... Specifically, the altitude was 82 feet above sea level..... So if the BC for the 300 SMK gets adjusted for an altitude change, then the HAT BC should be adjusted for that same altitude change to keep the comparison consistent. Additionally, we ran the numbers using the 280 grain HAT model out of a 338 Lapua Improved casing and it was more significant in comparison than the 265 grain HAT out of the same case when compared to the Cheytac-based cases with the 300 SMK at 3400 fps......

You mention that you have faith in the 300 SMKs.... I do too.... I have a lot of them that have been sorted into the many different groups that one finds in large boxes of them... Specifically, we sort by weight, bearing surface, meplat consistency and then once that is done, we break them up into the four different heel geometries that we have seen. We have seen at least four distinct different heel configurations coming out of the same batch(s) of bullets.

And, we use them...... Specifically, we use them to practice with and to fireform cases with. They are a great practice bullet and a great fireforming bullet.

Just imagine the possibilities shooters have given that you are getting a solid 3400 fps with the 300 grain SMK and we get a 250 to 300 fps bump in velocity just by going from 300 grains to 265 grains in our guns.....

WOW, that equates to 3650 fps or even 3700 fps with the 265 grain HAT out of a Cheytac-based case..... Run the numbers at a sea level altitude with the 300 SMK at 3400 fps and the 265 grain HAT at 3700 fps and you will see the distinct advantage these bullets exhibit in the Cheytac-based cases. It is hard to ignore that comparison............

Our next mission/project is to see how close we can get to the performance figures in your post on 2-11-08 with us using a 300 RUM-based case. The reason we will use the 2-11-08 number is due to the large numbers of guns that were manufactured and sold based on this data..... We will be doing the comparison in both .30 and .338 calibers. Hopefully, we get closer than some might think....

Additioanlly, I would like to purchase one of your 338 Allen Magnum fire formed cases for my case collection since it has your name on the headstamp. Let me know how much it is and I will send you the funds for the shipping and the case. Thanks again.

Again, good luck in 2009.

Lightvarmint
 
LL,

For instance.

When I decided to get into benchrest, I noticed that everyone was scratching for good brass back in the mid 1990s...... As soon as the brass became available, I purchased 7000 pieces..... Now I don't have to worry about brass.

Next, I got the 600 yard bug and purchased a new 6mm Dasher bench gun. Since the original purchase, I have added three new additional barrels to my barrel inventory. So when Obama got elected and I got concerned about supply of shooting components, I then purchased an addtitional 70,000 primers and 144 lbs of powder..... Also, when copper started moving up in price this last year, I got concerned and purchased 8000 bullets on sale for the 600 yard gun and now I don't have to worry about barrel supply, bullet supply, primer supply or powder supply .

Lightvarmint

You're the reason!!!!! You are the guy.............You are the reason I can never find components when I need them.:D:D

Stop it, will ya!!!!
 
Kirby,

I would agree that one needs to be skeptical about new products. I also agree that testing needs to continually be done and the truth be known, the testing process really NEVER stops.

However, when the HATS are the only bullet company we have found that offers a money back customer satisfaction guarantee on their products, the risk of using them is far, far, far less than buying say a custom gun from a custom gunsmith that does not live in your locale or even region of the country.... I have heard too many horror stories about shady practices, misinformation on barrel twists as well as incorrect barrels being used or billed to the customer and that is a scary thought.

Mr Henson includes reloading "tips" for these projectiles on the reverse of EVERY invoice to ensure the customer has the best chance at success. Afterall, some folks on this very website have learned just this year that you can shoot bughole groups without the bullets engaging the rifling lands at the time of ignition......

I just wish all the suppliers of shooting products and firearms had the same customer satisfaction policies as Mr Henson.

Kirby, again, good luck in 2009 and stay warm.

Lightvarmint
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Recent Posts

Top