They are wrong
Sorry I can't post their response.
They are wrong
LRABs require faster twist. Do a custom search on the top right hand corner for " LRAB Bryan Litz" for his well written post about it.
The twist test for the 168 LRAB was 1:7".
IIWY, I'd seriously look into the Berger VLD offerings from 168 to 195 and twist rate recommendations accordingly.
Bust away Sir!
I asked a couple of my fellow analyst here at work and they have no problem with my post either.
I try to be a fair person, personal bias aside... And on this very rare occasion of me agreeing with you, I will say that I did not find your post misleading either. I'm not really sure where all the confusion set in...
CHUguysRcrrrrrzy.
Honestly, had he omitted the completely arbitrary 1:7 comment it would be clearER to use the links instead of jumping to a 1:7. It would have been twice as easy to say 1:9 that it was to find 2 different links and type 1:7. The guy was in the ballpark for a 168gr.. 1:8-1:10.... The first part of the answer was "LRAB require faster twist"... faster than 1:8? Hell not.. followed by 1:7
At a glance, and being as he's asking a specific question.. "what twist" not "where is a twist calculator" and the fact Litz name is attached one could perceive that is the proper twist to use.
If a guy ask me at the range what twist he should use, and I'm familiar w/ the round, I answer xxxtwist... I don't say the guru of bullets is running a 1:3 (without disclaiming the fast twist) go to this website or get this book. Otherwise I acknowledge my ignorance and say I'm not sure.
I'm sure a million of people have tested a million different twist rates... WHO CARES.
It would suck if the op figures Litz used it so should I, and then proceeded to overnight a bart barrel from Grizzly in 1:7... But b/c thats unconventionally fast I don't for see this mistake happening.
The 175 lrab is practically identical length as the 180 hybrid and considering the polymer tip the 1:9 shouldn't have any problems. Nosler doesn't comment about twist on their box.
It's my understanding that the 1:9 will stabilize everything except the 195's, which has some exceptions.
I went with a 1:8 on my 280 AI. My main bullet is the 168 Berger VLD Hunting, which certainly does not require a 1:8. But I wanted to keep the door open to other bullets. The 168 grn Barns LRX is one of them, which is massive and does need a 1:8. The 175 grn ABLR is also fairly long, so a 1:9 might not quite be optimal.
But that's just the road I took, and why. You'd probably be very happy with a 1:9, but I wouldn't go any slower than that.