Sherman light (not for drinking)

[Pdvdh]

I probably won't make my own because, you are correct, a lot of people are finally jumping on the long range band wagon. I am still considering barrel length, but shorter was also part of my new LIGHTER side! We will see! I will probably end up with a 1300 yard pack rifle before it's over.......Rich

Too tiny too light becomes a long range accuracy handicap at some point of diminishing return. I wouldn't be motivated to take the bare rifle weight below ~6 1/4 lbs, all things considered. I wouldn't go down to Tonka size or weight for even 800 yd capability, let alone 1000. Compared to your 30/375 SI, 6.25 lbs naked rifle will carry like a piece of balsa wood. This from a guy that only carries packing weight rifles.

Maybe handle & shoot a miniaturized rifle before proceeding ultra small & light. Too much "Light" is like too much alcohol. Can be too much of a good thing.

 

[bigngreen]

[FONT=&quot]Cauterucio .264 This might be a option Rich. It's may not be quite .670 but I bet it works out to be close to that if you look at the BC break down. Most shots at game won't be under 2000fps unless your stretching things.

The Cauter 155 is a slick bullet and shoots very well but it is a touch explosive, even on light hits on deer they come completely uncorked, an elk could be a mess, it was what started to ask Matrix for a 160 with a heavier jacket and Marshal did an awesome job, it whack an elk but opens nice still.

 

[IdahoCTD]

Bob might be talked into making a heavier jacket 155 too if more than one person asked. Isn't the 160 a pretty long bearing surface bullet so you lose some velocity? It had some expansion issues too didn't it?

I agree with phorwath too about tiny rifles. There is nothing easy about shooting a 6lb rifle to 800yds with good results IMO. If anything I wouldn't sacrifice barrel weight/contour. If it's going to be light I'd rather it be muzzle heavy. I'd probably do a #4 24" if it was me and live with the weight. A light stock and a good deal of savings on the action will still produce a fairly light gun overall.

 

[elkaholic]

I appreciate all the input!

 

[IdahoCTD]

I will add input on the brake too. My .750" brakes weigh 2.6 oz uncontoured and my .875" weigh 3.4oz uncontoured. Paying 3 to 4 times as much for a titanium brake to save about 1oz is a little silly IMO.

 

[IdahoCTD]

OK boys and girls; here is why the 270 gets strong consideration! If I were building a long range rifle with a longer barrel, this would especially be appealing. I do think this rifle will be capable at 1000 though, if I wanted to. These ballistics are based on known quantities from the 6.5 and 7 with 26" barrels and reduced for a 22" barrel. The 270 is an educated guess based on what should happen with the same case. This would be Max or close to it.

MV moa 1000 10 mph/1000 velocity/1000 ft. lbs./1000
6.5 SS
140 hy.
.607 G1 3200 20.4 4.8 1889 1110

270 SS
170 Hy.
.703 G1 3030 21.6 4.3 1916 1386

7 SS
180 Hy.
.680 G1 2960 23.1 4.7 1831 1340

What do you think?

Wouldn't the 150 Matrix close that gap between the 6.5mm and 270/7mm?

 

[elkaholic]

Wouldn't the 150 Matrix close that gap between the 6.5mm and 270/7mm?

Ya, and I am considering that. I was trying to compare Berger to Berger. The 150 Matrix is about the same b.c. as the 140 Berger but I would also lose 100' or more of velocity so it would close the gap in ft/lbs but lose a little in trajectory, and windage.

 

[IdahoCTD]

I thought it was about .650 BC for the 150 and .625 BC for the 142 Matrix's? Also wasn't the 160 about .680 BC? I hate to admit it but the 270 looks like it would be the winner even with a different bullet in the 6.5mm.

 

[elkaholic]

Here is the 270 SS loaded with a 165 Matrix with a coal of 2.890". If I go the 270 route, I will make a reamer that will be suitable for both this bullet and the 170 Berger. I am GUESSING at this point, but I think the Berger would likely be loaded at about 2.920" to the lands and have a throat around .120 ish? The neck length is .328", so the throat does not need to be quite as long as most cartridges.View attachment 270 SS_165 Matrix-5.pdf

 

[Idaho Trecker]

my 270 ss has a long throat like my Sherman and with a 165 I am touching at 2.996". I had best accuracy at 2.955". Lots of room for powder and adjustment with the longer throat in mine. If you went with a long throat you could just get the Oberndorf canoe style bottom metal with the 3.110" box. After I see what depth my ss likes the 170 it will determine which new bottom metal I go with.

If you chamber yours for the 2.920" you mentioned it sounds like your current choice of the wyatts box will work great though.

Now I am regretting not going all in with my SS build I did and getting the titanium action.

 

[jomoeng]

Rich

I am looking at building 2 kids rifles similar to your build. Was thinking of a 260 or 6.5 creedmoor with reduced loads around 2400 fps. These would let the kids work up to long range as they get older. Do you have any ideas for similar loads on the 6.5 ss. Your rifle design here is similar to what I am working on except substitute the titanium action for a standard rem 700.

Thanks,
Joe

 

[elkaholic]

Rich

I am looking at building 2 kids rifles similar to your build. Was thinking of a 260 or 6.5 creedmoor with reduced loads around 2400 fps. These would let the kids work up to long range as they get older. Do you have any ideas for similar loads on the 6.5 ss. Your rifle design here is similar to what I am working on except substitute the titanium action for a standard rem 700.

Thanks,
Joe

One of the guys who just built one on a carbon fiber shot one hole while fire forming with 53 hrs. of H4831 and a 140 A-Max. I believe the velocity was 2870? This was with the 6.5 for others benefit.......Rich

 

[RH300UM]

Just to clarify. This is your wife's rifle??
Also elk and deer at the 800 yard range??

 

[elkaholic]

Just to clarify. This is your wife's rifle??
Also elk and deer at the 800 yard range??

Yup! This girl can shoot