Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Some explination please!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="liltank" data-source="post: 345305" data-attributes="member: 13275"><p>"This cartridge has some amazing traits that I had never experienced before; one of which was that it is <em>very forgiving</em>. Whether my powder charge was 83 grains of R22 or 85, it was difficult to shoot out of a hole. The powder charge utilized above is 84.5 grains of R22 with a chronographed velocity of 2780 fps and a validated velocity of 2770 fps. The extreme velocity spread is… (You won't believe this) <strong>three feet per second..." (</strong>338 Norma Review <strong><em>By Ward W. Brien)</em></strong></p><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p><strong><em></em></strong>This is a quote from the article that was posted here a while ago. This is the very reason that it has sparked an interest. Granted I am coming to not like Reloader powders, but I think this can be duplicated with another powder and or improved. But with this statement, improvement isn't needed. I have run the numbers through JBM and they put you at 1300yrds with 1500fps and 1500ft. lbs. of energy 39.4 MOA (Conditions conducive to where we hunt. 59degrees, 1000ft elevation, 78% Humidity, 28.85 Baro) . This is suppose to be achievable with a 24" to 26" barrel. In the discussion it was quoted by the author that a 23.5" barrel was optimal. He also said that after 28"s speed starts to scrub off. Now I am not sure, but that may be fixed with a better powder, but again, I like what I am seeing. Replacing the RL22 with a less temp sensitive powder would be the ticket. </p><p></p><p>Tank</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="liltank, post: 345305, member: 13275"] "This cartridge has some amazing traits that I had never experienced before; one of which was that it is [I]very forgiving[/I]. Whether my powder charge was 83 grains of R22 or 85, it was difficult to shoot out of a hole. The powder charge utilized above is 84.5 grains of R22 with a chronographed velocity of 2780 fps and a validated velocity of 2770 fps. The extreme velocity spread is… (You won’t believe this) [B]three feet per second..." ([/B]338 Norma Review [B][I]By Ward W. Brien) [/I][/B]This is a quote from the article that was posted here a while ago. This is the very reason that it has sparked an interest. Granted I am coming to not like Reloader powders, but I think this can be duplicated with another powder and or improved. But with this statement, improvement isn't needed. I have run the numbers through JBM and they put you at 1300yrds with 1500fps and 1500ft. lbs. of energy 39.4 MOA (Conditions conducive to where we hunt. 59degrees, 1000ft elevation, 78% Humidity, 28.85 Baro) . This is suppose to be achievable with a 24" to 26" barrel. In the discussion it was quoted by the author that a 23.5" barrel was optimal. He also said that after 28"s speed starts to scrub off. Now I am not sure, but that may be fixed with a better powder, but again, I like what I am seeing. Replacing the RL22 with a less temp sensitive powder would be the ticket. Tank [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Some explination please!!!
Top