Rifle Twist 7mm Rem Mag

[FEENIX]

They are wrong

Sorry I can't post their response.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Original post...

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...

 

[ohiohunter]

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.

 

[FEENIX]

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...

lightbulbThanks Mud, I appreciate that! lightbulb

 

[FEENIX]

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.

Bryan is the ballistician, I am NOT. The only recommendation I made was to search for the article and use Berger bullets.

You seem to be the one that is hanged up on this. Looks like the OP was OK with it. So let's move on, shall we. lightbulb

To the OP, I'm sorry if I was NOT clear in my initial response.

Let me make it clear, GO WITH BERGER BULLETS, i.e., 168 VLD, over 168 LRAB, esp. for elk at LRH.

Cheers!

 

[PGJPJ]

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.

 

[ohiohunter]

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.

 

[FEENIX]

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.

You are correct about the lack of twist recommendation on the box (perhaps that's what inspired Bryan to do the test as he did) but somewhere (in their site/reloading manual ???), courtesy of JD338 is ...

(#22 page 4 of http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/nosler-lr-accubonds-bc-testing-results-137554/index4.html)

... and Bryan's response ...

(#33 page 5 of http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/nosler-lr-accubonds-bc-testing-results-137554/index5.html)

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.

+1! I did a similar approach with my .270 AI (Lilja 1:8" 3-groove) and have one on order for a 1:9" 3-groove from Lilja in .308 cal for an upcoming project.

Cheers!