BigJimFish Review of Grayboe Ridgeback composite rifle stock for precision Remington 700 pattern rifles. Stock is a molded epoxy and fiberglass alternative to hand lay up stocks. Composition, bedding, fit, appearance, machining, harmonics, adjust ability, and suitability for PRS completion are discussed.

The post Grayboe Ridgeback composite stock review by BigJimFish appeared first on Sniper's Hide.

BigJimFish reviews a custom rifle in .223 Remington built by Kelbly's using their Atlas Tactical 700 semi-clone action, a Krieger barrel, Bix'n Andy TacSport Pro trigger, Grayboe Ridgeback stock, and MPA bottom metal. Rifle tested with factory ammo from Lapua, Copper Creek, Desert Tech, Federal, and Hornady.

The post Kelbly’s Atlas Tactical Custom Rifle review by BigJimFish appeared first on Sniper's Hide.

BigJimFish Reviews a Mesa Precision Arms Crux custom ultra light hunting rifle in 6.5CM using Mesa's own bottom metal and Crux Titanium action, a McMillan Edge Carbon adjustable Game Warden stock, Proof carbon wrapped barrel, and TriggerTech Primary trigger. Rifle tested with factory ammo from Desert Tech, Copper Creek, Federal, and Hornady.

The post Mesa Precision Arms Crux Custom Rifle and Titanium action review by BigJimFish appeared first on Sniper's Hide.

BigJimFish reviews the Bix'n Andy TacSport line of Remington 700 compatible triggers imported by BulletCentral from Austria.

The post BigJimFish Review of the Bix’n Andy TacSport Line of Ball Triggers. appeared first on Sniper's Hide.

BigJimFish reviews the Sightron SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH front focal plane, mil/mil, high power rifle scope as part of the Sub $1k rifle scope review series

The post Sightron SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH sub $1k ffp long range scope review by BigJimFish appeared first on Sniper's Hide.

BigJimFish reviews the Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27x50mm front focal plane, mil/mil, high power rifle scope as part of the Sub $1k rifle scope review series

The post Athlon Ares BTR 4.5-27x50mm sub $1k ffp long range scope review by BigJimFish appeared first on Sniper's Hide.

BigJimFish reviews the Athlon Midas TAC 6-24x50mm front focal plane, mil/mil, high power rifle scope as part of the Sub $1k rifle scope review series

The post Athlon Midas TAC 6-24x50mm sub $1k ffp long range scope review by BigJimFish appeared first on Sniper's Hide.

Table of Contents:
1) Table of Contents
2) Background on ARC
3) Unboxing, Contents, Disassembly, and Impressions
4) Claims
5) Testing of Claims
6) Summary and Conclusion

Background:

I first became aware of Bobro’s products when reviewing the first GRSC scope for Ed Verdugo. The scope that he sent me for that review was a prototype and was in his personal mount. I remember he specifically mentioned the mount at the time he sent me the optic. He was quite taken by Andrew’s products in general and particularly happy to have this mount because, due to the modular construction, the throw lever could be reversed. This was a necessity on one of his rifles. For my part, I was quite taken with the throw lever design. It was an easy-to-use locking system that did not mar the rail or require readjustment for slightly out of spec rails. It also seemed to grip quite firmly. All of these were improvements over other designs I had tried. There were only two things I did not like about that early incarnation of the product. The first was that you could not get the torque wrench on all the bolts. That issue has since been addressed. Secondly, I was not a big fan of the styling. I’m still not really a fan in that regard. I don’t know what it is, just sort of a biliousness or perhaps ponderousness in the appearance.

Appearance aside, I’ve been watching Bobro for the last four years. With little or no marketing (they don’t even have a SHOT show booth), I have seen the company grow by word of mouth, Ed’s mouth maybe, from a few isolated users to an OEM of Trijicon branded mounts. They did all this while having a website that, to my knowledge, has never even been up to date with their product offerings. In other words, the products sold themselves. Demand has been such that the less common mounts have always been in and out of stock and the bipod, well, just forget about finding the bipod. This high demand may have kept the website from being updated but it does not seem to have stopped product improvement or new designs. I mentioned the updated nut location and this review is of an entirely new cantilevered 34mm mount.

That brings me to how I came by this mount…. I begged. I was doing the 1-8x scope showdown and was coming up a bit short on the mount end. To run a good close quarters speed testing section, I need all optics to be in a mount simultaneously so that they can be quickly swapped. Despite burrowing from all my buddies, and dismounting pretty much everything I had, I was still short one 34mm mount for the Bushnell SMRS. I wrote Andrew and begged. The timing happened to be perfect as Andrew had been developing a cantilevered 34mm variant and was looking for some exposure for it. He turned one out and had it to me within a week. This is a great benefit of being a business that actually makes and develops the products you sell in a factory in the U.S. that you drive to every morning.

Unboxing, Contents, Disassembly, and Impressions:

The mount came to me with a small vial of Loctite (which I do not use), a single-sided instruction sheet, and the strangest little 1/2″ by 1/2″ hex wrench. The instructions explained this – it’s to keep you from manhandling the cap nuts and breaking your scope. Aside from a quick explanation of how to use the lever system, this is what the short instructions focused on. ‘We recommend you use a torque wrench, but if you don’t have one, don’t just go looking around for a bigger hex wrench. We know what you are thinking:  you want to use this big hefty mount to crush your cheap scope and blame us. We will not supply you the tool for accomplishing this. Furthermore, we have made the studs long enough that as the scope is tightened down you will get less and less purchase inside the nuts with your wrench so it will be harder to crush your scope. We have done all we can to prevent your idiot self from screwing things up.’ Okay, I’m paraphrasing. The instruction sheet was not written by me and they were nicer about saying things, but I can guess what they were thinking having had similar thoughts myself.

Aside from my impressions on the nature of idiot-proofing the design, the biggest single impression I had during the unboxing was that this thing is huge and heavy. I have mentioned during my 34mm 1-8x scope reviews that the downside of 34mm designs is that the added size tends to add weight to the optic as well as the mount. This mount is a great illustration of this. The 30mm Bobro cantilevered mount I first used four years ago was 6.9oz, which was exactly the weight of the competing Larue. This one weighed in at 12.3oz, easily the heaviest mount I have ever used and very close to the weight of ultra high 34mm steel Badger Ordnance rings. I will mention that the mount in this review is a prototype and that the production versions weigh slightly less. I understand that this is a tricky thing to criticize since many 34mm scopes are quite heavy and many rifles kick with great vigor. The largest contributing to the need for strength, which will add weight, is probably the fact that this is a cantilevered mount. Any engineer knows that, in order to hold the same load as a beam supported on both ends, a cantilever must not be twice as strong but rather significantly more than that. This applies to cantilevered mounts as well. It is the cost of getting the extra two inches of eye relief that the cantilever allows. Many scope makers seem to have adopted the thought that longer is always better with regard to eye relief so this is increasingly necessary.

The finish of the Bobro is black anodizing of the highest quality, similar to that of the ARC mount previously reviewed. The machining is also excellent and clean, with no tooling marks remaining. Between these two designers there is a major difference in strategy and goal that should be addressed. The center section of the American Rifle Company mount included the ring bottoms in what was a very unified system aimed at eliminating all fasteners that would never be utilized by the end user to add stiffness and precision. This Bobro design, and Bobro designs in general, are modular in design. The rings are separate from the backbone and in some designs, though not this one, the backbone is also separate from the base. The idea of this modular construction is to lower cost and increase the options available by making parts interchangeable. Any rings can be mated with any backbone and, in the more common single lever models, with any base. This is how Ed was able to reverse the lever in his 30mm mount. He reversed the direction of the base component as well as that of the forward indexing cross slot lug. In this 34mm variant, the base and backbone are one piece since not enough vertical room existed to make a joint and added stiffness was needed in the design to accommodate heavy scopes and violent rifles. Nevertheless, any rings could be dropped on top.

Claims:

Andrew is quite up front with the claims for his locking system. They are clearly listed on the website and are as follows:

1.  Must be compatible with any 1913 Specification Rail, to include systems that are out of specification (within reason) and this includes Weaver rails.
2.  Must be completely user adjustable, tool free. It needs to be 100% self-contained and mate securely to any rail without the user having to tailor the pressure/engagement position.
3.  Must lock with enough pressure to positively attach any device or optical instrument to a rail without movement, static or dynamic forces not withstanding.
4.  The rail must not experience any deformation due to user error. This must include synthetic (plastic/polymer/composite) rail systems.
5.  Auto Index capability. The device must also index parallel to the bore. The unit must always repeat the forward shift (recoil forces direction of influence) not only to maximize zero repeatability, but to take this step of installation out of the user’s initial mounting sequence. Index must be redundant.
6.  Unit must not shoot loose due to improper mounting or a mechanical bottoming out.
7.  The system must incorporate a safety that prevents the lever from being accidentally opened. The safety must be able to be manipulated in conjunction with the lever rotation, so that only one hand is required to open it.
8.  The unit will utilize constant force to ensure required pressure in all conditions. The force must be substantial to prevent any shift forward/aft left/right.
9.  The pressure must be applied in a linear direction centered in the main body to prevent cocking of the mount.
10.  It must be easy to manipulate by gloved or fatigued hands.
11.  It must be extremely robust, and withstand shock and impact to the system housing.

Many of these claims such as 2, 7, and 9 are more design specifications than testable claims. It is obvious from the pictures that the design meets these specifications. I will boil the others down to three claims, flatly ignoring claim 11 because I’m not about to go at it with a hammer or drag it behind my truck. Here is my Readers Digest version of the testable Bobro claims:

a. Will fit on any in-spec rail without adjustment and not mar.
b. Will return to, and hold, zero.
c. Can be attached and detached with a single gloved hand.

Testing of Claims:

In order to test the fit any in-spec rail without marring claim and gloved hand claim, I attached and detached the mount from a variety of rails:  polymer, steel, and aluminum. A single, gloved hand is not an issue. The levers have plenty of purchase. Similarly, no in-spec rail presented any size difficultly. On the out of spec rails I tried, two problems came up. First, some rails have cross slots that are not the correct width. This has been a problem before for me as many rings have cross slot engagement that also requires in-spec rails. Bobro has a little leeway in this department because of its forward indexing cross slot lug. This lug has a spring loaded arm on the back that forces the mount to always index forward. Still, I did have a rail on hand that was just too far below spec on cross slot thickness in this department for the mount to fit on without a little file work on the out of spec rail. On significantly oversized rails, I believe the bobro will probably also not fit. The fit is snug on a rail I have that is right on spec but has been painted. There is some room for an oversized rail, but not all that much. As to an undersized rail, I have a significantly undersized rail for testing and the Bobro gripped it plenty tight. Lastly, no mar was noticed on any rail, even the polymer accessory rail I tried. Some of the competing products will not mount on all the different, and out of spec, rails I tested on and some will only mount with a good deal of wrench adjustment in between.

Now we get to the meat of the testing:  Will it hold zero and will it return to zero? Throughout the course of my testing I used both the original Bushnell SMRS 1-8.5x scope and a U.S. Optics ER-25 scope. This mount does feature enough distance between the turrets to fit a T-pal saddle section comfortably. Both optics were torqued to 20 inch/lbs. The test targets below were fired with the high powered USO scope. All were fired from a Patriot Arms (APA) .308 rifle and two different loads were used for the different groups as marked on the target. One of these was a fresh loading of the same Nosler 168 based load that I used for the American Rifle Company review. The other was a new Sierra 168 SMK based load that I had high hopes for, but sadly proved to be a poor load. Groups were fired from a bench at 100 yards with front and rear bag in about 70 degrees with variable winds to about 4 mph.

Before we analyze the targets, let us talk a little about a mount or rings returning to zero after being dismounted and remounted. I think the first thing to say is that there are really no such things as mounts that return to zero and those that do not. What do exist are mounts offering different degrees of average change in point of aim after a mount is dismounted and remounted. The idea is to get as little average change as possible. Most companies advertising a QD product that “returns to zero” do not specify how much change is expected and tolerable and, therefore, amount to meaningless statements. Some, notably GDI, do (in their case, .1 MOA in lab and <.2 in field testing). That degree of repeatability would be good enough for probably any use shy of benchrest, whereas the 1 MOA claim that I have heard others informally bandy about for other makers, while it might suit the AR crowd, would not please most precision rifle users.

A number of things matter when it comes to return to zero and not all of them are the province of the rings or mount. In order to make a scope’s new location, after remounting, as close as possible to its original location; it is most advisable for the designer of the mount to try to make all the variables effecting this as repeatable as possible. These variables include gripping force, position, and deformation of the parts involved. Bobro’s design, with its precisely calibrated spring tension and tight cross slot engagement, seeks to minimize any changes to these variables.

In order to test the return to zero capabilities of the Bobro mount, I fired three groups with each ammunition at 100 yards. I started with the SMK based ammo that I had hopes for and shot two five shot groups dismounting and remounting the scope in between. I next shot a third five shot group dismounting and remounting each shot. These groups were less than I expected, so I switched to the ammo that was a known quantity and did three more. This time I shot the first group and for both the second and third groups I dismounted and remounted each shot. The final group was only four rounds as I was out of the Nosler ammo at that time.

In order to better analyze the resulting targets, I used the OnTarget program. This program calculated a variety of statistics for each group. Of most interest are the horizontal and vertical offset from aim point statistics. By comparing each groups offsets to those of the other groups, the displacement from the center of one group to another could be calculated and from that, the average displacement calculated. With the SMK based load, the average group-to-group shift in the calculated center was .214″ and this when the average displacement of a shot from the center of its group was .326″. With the Nosler based load, the average group-to-group shift in the calculated center was .205″ and this when the average displacement of a shot from the center of its group was .212″. What does this mean? I could go dig up some equations for standard deviation and try to figure out if the deviation in calculated group centers can be said to be great enough to reasonably exclude chance alone, but, given the small number of data points, I think that I would only end up finding I had a lack of data and couldn’t say much of anything with reasonable confidence. This will not keep me from speculating. People have to make decisions with insufficient information all the time. These decisions are alternately referred to as judgments when they go right and luck when they go wrong, relative to the observer. Most of the best paid people in the world are engaged almost solely in this type of decision and you can guess what my philosophical opinion on that is. Since I would like to be as well paid as, say, a Goldman Sacs analyst; I will give you my opinion and then you can risk your money and pay me a big chunk regardless of performance. I think that performance of the Bobro mount returning to zero and holding zero is good enough for any non-benchrest use. The groups fired dismounting and remounting the scope each shot did not open up significantly when compared to those fired with the scope mounted throughout. Furthermore, having used the Nosler load  in conjunction with this rifle and a number of different mounting systems in the past, some quick-release and some not, I can say that the groups fired with the Bobro are not larger than those fired using traditional rings. Actually, the .442″ group is the smallest with that load to date.

Summary and Conclusion.

Bobro is one of my favorite makers of quick-release mounts. I regularly recommend their single lever 30mm mounts to AR users. It is the best affordable, cantilevered, quick-release system made. It is exactly what most AR users are looking for – or would be if they were willing to spend more than $50. Today’s 34mm mount is something of a hybrid of the cantilevered quick-release mounts common to AR users and the precision optic uni-mounts that many bolt gun users have. Bobro doubles up the levers to handle heavy recoiling loads, adds 34mm rings, and stiffens the backbone to base juncture by making it one piece, all while keeping the cantilevered nature. I am pleased that Bobro also accommodates the large saddle section of USO T-Pal scopes in this design.

The design performs as advertised. It is solid and I have no qualms about its ability to hold and return to zero. For those who like to pull their precision rifle optic from time to time and mount it on an AR, this is an excellent option to consider. It may similarly be seen as an excellent option for the now plentiful 34mm. The cantilever will also be appreciated by those who have long necks but not so long arms, as traditional rings often cannot be mounted far enough forward on a properly sized rifle to get proper eye relief when shooting prone. Many folks end up increasing length of pull to ridiculous degrees to compensate for this and then having problems with that long ass rifle held out in off-hand shooting.

Even so, not everything about the Bobro drop forward 34mm mount is ideal. At around $325, it is well up into the top price bracket for mounts, but it lacks a few of the extras becoming more common in premium precision optics uni-mounts. Plenty of room exists at the rear of the base for a bubble level, but none is present. That big, wide, flat space at the back of the base just looks so desirous of a small bubble level. Similarly, a mounting point is not present for an add-on angle cosine gauge. Alternate ring caps are slated to be available to connect the small red dots popular with many shooters though. The weight is a substantial consideration as well. Certainly the cantilever design and quick-release system add some weight, and that weight may simply be the cost of having these features:  features that if you weren’t interested in you wouldn’t be reading this. All in all, it is a solid design. Though a few alterations could make it even more attractive.

The post Review of the Bobro 34mm Cantilevered Precision Optic Mount appeared first on Snipers Hide.

Table of Contents:
– Background
– Testing Methodology:  Adjustments, Reticle Size, Reticle Cant
– Testing Methodology:  Comparative Optical Evaluation

Background

At some point in decade or so of testing optics I have now done I began to notice that there were aspects of optical performance I had overlooked specifically testing in one review that I noticed I had tested and mentioned in others. This was usually in the form of not having any notes on something like the chromatic aberration of scope A when I mentioned it about scope B. The reason for this might be, and probably was, that A didn’t have much of an issue with CA. Still, I realized a standard operating procedure would improve the quality, impartiality, and probably also speed of my work. I began to come up with checklists of tests and evaluation points to use while evaluating optics. Over time I have added to, and refined, these procedures and I will continue to do so. Furthermore, I realized that others might be interested in my testing methodology and that any good student of the sciences should provide such information as a matter of fidelity to the field. I did go to University in this stuff, learned how to do it, and personally value these practices on a deep philosophical level. It was a bit slow of me not to have done things in this systematized way from day 1. Be that as it may, this is the testing methodology I followed in 2015- 2018.

Testing Methodology:  Adjustments, Reticle Size, Reticle Cant

            When testing scope adjustments, I use the adjustable V-block on the right of the test rig to first center the erector. Approximately .2 or so mil of deviation is allowed from center in the erector as it is difficult to do better than this because the adjustable V-block has some play in it. The erector can be centered with the scope mounted or not mounted. If it started unmounted, I mount it after centering. I next set the zero stop (on scopes with such a feature) to this centered erector and attach the optic to the rail on the left side of the test rig.

The three fine threaded 7/16″ bolts on the rig allow the scope to be aimed precisely at an 8’x3′ Horus CATS 280F target 100 yds downrange as measured by a quality fiberglass tape measure. The target is also trued to vertical with a bubble level. The reticle is aimed such that its centerline is perfectly aligned with the centerline of the target and it is vertically centered on the 0 mil elevation line.

            The CATS target is graduated in both mils and true MOA and calibrated for 100 yards. The target is mounted upside-down on a target backer designed specifically for this purpose as the target was designed to be fired at rather than being used in conjunction with a stationary scope. (Since up for bullet impact means down for reticle movement on the target, the inversion is necessary.) With the three bolts tightened on the test rig head, the deflection of the rig is about .1 mil under the force required to move adjustments. The rig immediately returns to zero when the force is removed. It is a very solid, very precise test platform. These bolts allow the scope to be precisely positioned such that its reticle is perfectly aligned with the test target prior to moving the adjustments. Each click of movement in the scope adjustments moves the reticle on the target and this can observed by the tester as it actually happens during the test:  it’s quite a lot of fun if you are a bit of a nerd like I am! After properly setting the parallax to the target (head bob method) and diopter (after the parallax), I move the elevation adjustment though the range from erector center until it stops, making note every 5 mils of adjustment dialed of any deviation in the position of the reticle on the target relative to where it should be and also making note of the total travel and any excess travel in the elevation knob after the reticle stops moving but before the knob stops. At the extent of this travel I can also determine the cant of the reticle by measuring how far off of the target centerline the reticle has moved. I next reverse the adjustment process and go back down to zero. This is done several times to verify consistency with any notes taken of changes. After testing the elevation adjustments in this manner, the windage adjustments are tested out to 4 mils each way in similar fashion using the same target and basically the same method. The elevation and windage are then tested in conjunction with one another by making a large box 8 mil wide and as tall as the adjustments will allow. If the scope is one where it is easy to do so (not a pin type zero stop model), I next re-align the test rig to point the scope at the bottom of the target and test the elevation in the other direction for tracking and range. After concluding the testing of adjustments, I also test the reticle size calibration. This is done quite easily on this same target by comparing the reticle markings to those on the target.

            Testing a single scope of a given model from a given manufacturer, which is really all that is feasible, is not meant to be indicative of all scopes from that maker. Accuracy of adjustments, reticle size, and cant will differ from scope to scope. After testing a number of scopes, I have a few theories as to why. As designed on paper, I doubt that any decent scope has flaws resulting in inaccurate clicks in the center of the adjustment range. Similarly, I expect few scopes are designed with inaccurate reticle sizes (and I don’t even know how you would go about designing a canted reticle as the reticle is etched on a round piece of glass and cant simply results from it being rotated incorrectly when positioned). However, ideal designs aside, during scope assembly the lenses are positioned by hand and will be off by this much or that much. This deviation in lens position from design spec can cause the reticle size or adjustment magnitude to be incorrect and, I believe, is the reason for these problems in most scopes. Every scope maker is going to have a maximum acceptable amount of deviation from spec that is acceptable to them and I very much doubt they would be willing to tell you what this number is, or better yet, what the standard of deviation is. The tighter the tolerance, the better from the standpoint of the buyer, but also the longer average time it will take to assemble a scope and, therefore, the higher the cost. Assembly time is a major cost in scope manufacture. It is actually the reason that those S&B 1-8x short dots took years to make it to market. Tolerances are a particular concern for scopes that have high magnification ratios and also for those that are short in length. Both of these design attributes tend to make assembly very touchy. This should make you, the buyer, particularly careful to test purchased scopes that have these desirable attributes, as manufacturers will face greater pressure on these types to allow looser standards. If you test your scope and find it lacking, I expect that you will not have too much difficulty in convincing a maker with a reputation for good customer service to remedy it:  squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that. Remember that some deviations, say a scope’s adjustments being 1% too large or small, are easy to adjust for in ballistic software, whereas others, a large reticle cant for instance, are not.

            Before I leave adjustments, reticle size, and reticle cant, I will give you some general trends I have noticed so far. The average adjustment deviation seems to vary on many models with distance from optical center. This is a good endorsement for a 20 MOA base, as it will keep you closer to center for longer. The average deviation for a scope’s elevation seems to be about .1% at 10 mils. Reticle size deviation is sometimes found to vary with adjustments so that both the reticle and adjustments are off in the same way and with similar magnitude. This makes them agree with each other when it comes to follow up shots. I expect this is caused by the error in objective lens position affecting both the same. In scopes that have had a reticle with error, it has been of this variety, but fewer scopes have this issue than have adjustments that are off. Reticle size deviation does not appear to vary in magnitude as you move from erector center although adjustment deviation often does. The mean amount of reticle error is less than .05%. Reticle cant mean is about .05 degrees. Reticle cant, it should be noted, affects the shooter as a function of calculated drop and can easily get lost in the windage read. As an example, a 1 degree cant equates to about 21 cm at 1000 meters with a 168 gr .308 load that drops 12.1 mil at that distance. That is a lot of drop, and a windage misread of 1 mph is of substantially greater magnitude (more than 34 cm) than our example reticle cant-induced error. This type of calculation should be kept in mind when examining all mechanical and optical deviations in a given scope:  a deviation is really only important if it is of a magnitude similar to the deviations expected to be introduced by they shooter, conditions, rifle, and ammunition. Lastly, the proliferation of “humbler” type testing units such as mine appears to have resulted in scope companies improving their QC standards. I see less deviation in products now then a few years ago.

Testing Methodology:  Comparative Optical Evaluation

The goal of my optical performance evaluation is NOT to attempt to establish some sort of objective ranking system. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it is notoriously difficult to measure optics in an objective and quantifiable way. Tools, such as MTF plots, have been devised for that purpose, primarily by the photography business. Use of such tools for measuring rifle scopes is complicated by the fact that scopes do not have any image recording function and therefore a camera must be used in conjunction with the scope. Those who have taken through-the-scope pictures will understand the image to image variance in quality and the ridiculousness of attempting to determine quality of the scope via images so obtained.  Beyond the difficulty of applying objective and quantifiable tools from the photography industry to rifle scopes, additional difficulties are encountered in the duplication of repeatable and meaningful test conditions. Rifle scopes are designed to be used primarily outside, in natural lighting, and over substantial distances. Natural lighting conditions are not amenable to repeat performances. This is especially true if you live in central Ohio, as I do. Without repeatable conditions, analysis tools have no value, as the conditions are a primary factor in the performance of the optic. Lastly, the analysis of any data gathered, even if such meaningful data were gathered, would not be without additional difficulties. It is not immediately obvious which aspects of optical performance, such as resolution, color rendition, contrast, curvature of field, distortion, and chromatic aberration, should be considered of greater or lesser importance. For such analysis to have great value, not only would a ranking of optical aspects be in order, but a compelling and decisive formula would have to be devised to quantitatively weigh the relative merits of the different aspects. Suffice it to say, I have neither the desire nor the resources to embark on such a multi-million dollar project and, further, I expect it would be a failure anyway as, in the end no agreement will be reached on the relative weights of different factors in analysis.

            The goal of my optical performance evaluation is instead to help the reader get a sense of the personality of a particular optic. Much of the testing documents the particular impressions each optic makes on the tester. An example of this might be a scope with a particularly poor eyebox behind which the user notices he just can’t seem to get to a point where the whole image is clear. Likewise, a scope might jump out to the tester as having a very bad chromatic aberration problem that makes it difficult to see things clearly as everything is fringed with odd colors. Often these personality quirks mean more to the users’ experience than any particular magnitude of resolution number would. My testing seeks to document the experience of using a particular scope in such a way that the reader will form an impression similar to that of the tester with regard to like or dislike and will be aware of the reasons for that impression.

            The central technique utilized for this testing is comparative observation. One of the test heads designed for my humbler apparatus consists of five V-blocks of which four are adjustable.  This allows each of the four scopes on the adjustable blocks to be aimed such that they are collinear with the fifth. For the majority of the testing, each scope is then set to the same power (the highest power shared by all as a rule). Though power numbers are by no means accurately marked, an approximation will be obtained. Each scope will have the diopter individually adjusted by the tester, the adjustments centered optically, and the parallax set. A variety of targets, including both natural backdrops and optical test targets, will be observed through the plurality of optics with the parallax being adjusted for each optic at each target. A variety of lighting conditions over a variety of days will be utilized. Specific notes are made regarding:  resolution, color rendition, contrast, field of view, edge to edge quality, light transmission, pincushion and barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, tunneling, depth of field, eyebox, stray light handling, and optical flare. The observations through all of these sessions will be combined in the way that the tester best believes conveys his opinion of the optic’s performance and explains the reasons why.

The post BigJimFish 2018 Precision Optic Testing Methodology appeared first on Snipers Hide.

Shooting a match with the Kelbly’s Atlas Tactical wearing a Grayboe Ridgeback Stock and eating Lapua ammo

Introduction

When I first heard about Grayboe it sounded much like a division of McMillan. It was clear that Ryan, the Navy SEAL veteran son of CEO Kelly, was heading up the brand; but Kelly was also quoted in a lot of the press releases, the stocks were being made at the same location as McMillan stocks, and the Grayboe stock geometries were McMillan licensed. Last year at Shot 2017, I attended the McMillan press conference. At that event Kelly made statements to the effect that Grayboe was in no way affiliated with McMillan and really never was. He had helped his son get the ball started for a little while, but he was off and running now and no affiliation remained. At the same press conference, Kelly announced McMillan’s own lower priced line of stocks, the MC3 line. I thought:  damn, these McMillans don’t mess around! I’ll help you get started today, son, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going after your market segment tomorrow. Of course, in the process of doing this review I asked Ryan about all this. He said the companies have always had separate ownership, but there was a time when Grayboe was located in the McMillan facility that he and Kelly were looking to find a path in which Grayboe and McMillan could coexist. That didn’t work out and it looked like the best option for both parties for Grayboe to locate to its own facility.

Table of Contents:
1) Grayboe stock technology
2) What a Grayboe stock is made of
3) Unboxing and initial impressions
4) Dimensions and measurements
5) Analysis
6) Upcoming plans
7) Conclusion
8) Pros and Cons

Grayboe stock technology

So, just what is a Grayboe stock? The shortest answer to that is that it is a composite stock. It is not, however, manufactured using the hand lay up method like most other composite stocks. This method involves impregnating fiber fabric with epoxy resin and laying it in a mold to form a shell which you later fill with a less dense fill material and, finally, machine to inlet. All this takes a minimum of 8 man hours per stock and is typically more like 12-14 hours total. The Grayboe material is epoxy based and includes fiberglass fibers and lightening agents similar to a traditional composite stock. The manufacture process, however, produces a non-directional uniform material. My initial suspicions were that this was through the use of an epoxy injection molding process similar to those used for things like transformer housings in the electronics industry. After grinding a bit on it during the bedding process, I suspect this is not the case, though, and that the molding process is lower pressure. Both small air voids (note the area machined deeper just below the front action screw) and places that appeared to have previously been voids but filled in (note the white fill just below or in front of the front action screw) were present.

Grayboe developed its specific material formulations over several years and tests them at the composites center at USC. Their material provides excellent strength, stiffness, recoil absorption, and harmonics just as a traditional composite stock does. Because of its non-directional nature, you also get more flexibility in where you can machine it for add-ons. During this review I ground, machined, and drilled the material extensively. I can attest that it machines very easily and with remarkable smoothness. It cut so smoothly, in fact, that I didn’t need to sand the cut surface left at the ejection port. Grinding out room for bedding compound or drilling for attachments is done with ease and also without worry of compromising the shell structurally or creating a starting point for de-lamination. All of the machining I did for bedding and for adding my molded grip took less than two hours. I do recommend a respirator or dust mask when you do so, however: the grindings have a good bit of fiberglass in them and are very abrasive. Using Dremel high speed cutters at 15k rpms is optimal for a smooth even cut. I should also note that the paint used is very tough and did not chip out at the edge of any of my cuts or drills; this was very helpful in leaving a clean finish.

In my opinion, the biggest benefit of the Grayboe process is that, having eliminated the long labor hours of the hand lay up process, Grayboe stocks can be made at significantly less cost. The Ridgeback which I have here can be had with a quality DBM for $600 vs. around $1,000 that a comparable composite stock costs and, in addition, the Grayboe has a few more extras: such as a bubble level and M-Lok system. It is also important to note that although a Grayboe stock can be bedded even more easily than a traditionally made composite stock (depending on exactly how you have the traditional one prepped), though, you are more likely to skip this since the uniform material beneath the action is better suited to the unaided support of the action than the machined fill material in that section of a traditionally made composite stock. Furthermore, the Grayboe already has aluminum pillars molded in. It is my estimation that most custom rifle makers using Grayboe stocks will be bedding them but that most aftermarket buyers will not.

Unboxing and Impressions

The Grayboe arrived double boxed and well packed. Included with the stock were spacers for LOP and extra fasteners. The extra fasteners included two extra M-lock screws, a low profile option for the adjustable cheek piece, and longer screws for using the spacers on the pad to get longer LOP. Most notable in absentia is an M-lock flush cup. The stock has two rear flush cups molded in but no front ones. If you want to use a sling, you will have to add this via the M-lock system for about $20. The Ridgeback can be purchased without bottom metal for $500 from several sites or can be bought in a package deal with bottom metal for $600. I recommend the latter since you essentially get the MPA bottom metal for $100 in the package when it is usually $165. You should certainly buy the Grayboe from a third party site or through your rifle maker rather than direct because it is less expensive that way. You can use any other M5 inlet compatible bottom metal if the MPA isn’t the set of features you most like. I will also mention you can buy the Ridgeback in BDL configuration to use with the factory hinged floor plate bottom metal on a Remington 700.

The first thing I noticed when looking over the stock was the less than clean paint inside the inletting. For some reason you are drawn to this and I have heard other owners also had this initial impression. You’re not going to see this area with the rifle in, and most stocks aren’t even painted here, but, for some reason, it is the first place you look. What you see is basically overspray from painting the outside of the stock a bit unevenly and clinging to a few loose fibers kicked up from the edge of the machining of some of the inletting. It is not a fair impression, but it is probably the one you will get first. I think much of this is because the rest of the stock looks clean and well fit so you are drawn to the one place you won’t end up seeing anyway: You have been warned.

The next thing I noticed was a little bit of aluminum under the paint in the DBM inlet. I hadn’t known that aluminum bedding pillars were molded in, so this was a big win. The pillars contribute to accuracy by making the stock essentially uncompressible under the action. It also makes it significantly easier for the end user to do a good quality bedding job. Seeing this second was interesting: my first impression had been that maybe this wasn’t as good a stock as I thought it was going to be and then it was immediately followed by the thought that maybe it was better.

That thought continued as I went down the stock area by area. The recoil pad (a Browning Inflex) felt very good; better than I expected on a moderately priced stock. The 6 M-lock inserts (2 left, 2 right, and 2 bottom) are very nicely fitted and the stock fore end has been specifically designed to accommodate the relief underneath the inserts. The adjustable cheek piece is Grayboe’s own design: much easier to manufacture and a big departure from the norm. I had been wary when I saw some pictures of the prototypes as they had no guide rods and I did not see how you could keep it from rocking. In the production version they have added a single guide rod to the design and it is rock solid. It left me wondering why nobody had tried it before. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that our designs in the way of cheek pieces basically come down to what is easy to do in wood. The Grayboe’s new design would not work in wood but is pretty easy to do with any molded material. I am actually a little surprised that something like this was not developed earlier given how much easier, and less time consuming, it is to do in any molded stock than a traditional cheek piece. In fact, many molded stocks actually use the exact cheek piece hardware that was originally designed to be put in a wood stock and is still used on wood stocks. Putting this hardware in a hand lay up composite stock, for instance, is not the easiest thing to do since the shell and fill body of the composite stock is very different than the structure of wood. All that being said, although the Grayboe system is as good as most traditional cheek systems, it does not have the quick removal or lateral adjust of the better systems such as the Warner.

Dimensions and Measurements

Grayboe’s website is pretty sparse to start with and compounds that with being a bit nebulous, so I was not sure of really any of the specs when I received the stock. Here is what I have measured:

– Weight: 58.3oz (3.64lbs) This is basically exactly what a McMillan A5 adjustable fiberglass stock averages
– Recoil lug slot thickness: 0.3565″
– Recoil lug slot depth: 0.5455″
– Recoil lug slot width: 1.34″
* Note: The back of the recoil slot is a little rounded at the edges. If your custom action has a full width recoil lug, it will not totally center on the action holes without inletting the recoil lug slot edges some.
– Barrel channel width at stock front end: 1.034″
* Note: The fit on a Sendero contour barrel is perfect.
– Width of fore end: 2.524″
– Inlet: M5, Grayboe sells a Mesa Precision arms one but you can use any. DBM is not included with stock.
– It has a bubble level in the stock
– LOP range (with included parts and stock rem trigger) 12.5″ – 13.885″ with 5x .277″ spacers. Presumably, you could get more spacers and longer machine screws.
– Paint is Polane T 2 part polyurethane. The stock can be painted with Cerakote and baked at 400 for 20min without a problem.

Analysis

I have found the strength, stiffness, and feel of the Grayboe to be excellent. The spacing of the pillars and their depth was also perfect, as was the bottom metal fit. Fit on my Kelbly action was not drop-in and it will not be so on many custom actions. Custom actions have some variance in many dimensions. In the case of my Kelbly, it uses a trigger hanger, a wider trapezoidal recoil lug, and a longer ejection port. Accommodating each of these required some removal of stock material.

The stock is both usable unbedded and very easy to bed as a result of the easily workable material and the already present and properly placed aluminum pillars. The M-lok slots on three sides of the fore end coupled with the strength and stiffness of the material will be of excellent use to a PRS shooter in attaching barricade stops. The Grayboe should be quite competitive with chassis in this respect and have a good leg up on traditional composite stocks. The level, though it looks cheap, is functional, can be seen in shooting position, and is actually level.

The grip area, like any A5 style stock, provides a terrible hand position to the shooter with very poor hand contact with the stock when proper trigger finger position is employed unless you have the hands of Shaq. As shown in the pictures, I added #10×32 threaded brass injection molding inserts to the stock while I was bedding it. I use these inserts to fasten a molded polymer clay grip to the stock. These can be made for about $10 from oven hardening polymer clay available at any craft store: I highly recommend this. Building up and custom fitting the grip area of a stock is done in most of the older shooting sports that involve support of the rifle by the shooter. Biathlon and 3-position are excellent examples of this. It should be expected that PRS competitors will see the same benefits.

With my facial dimensions, adjustable cheek pieces are a must if I want a good weld. I don’t even look at stocks that don’t have one. Just as with the grip, I find that proper fit on the cheek piece is essential. These are contact points where your body and the rifle meet. Proper fit means better control of the rifle and, consequently, more accuracy. This is greatly amplified by positions requiring the shooter (as opposed to inanimate objects) to support the rifle. The adjustable piece on the Ridgeback unfortunately has a rather small range of adjustment at only 3/4″ and, more importantly, starts rather low (below the bolt). This compares with more than 1″ of adjustment range on the Warner Tool one on my 3-position gun. The height might be just enough, with a small objective scope on ultra-low mounts, to get me to center line, but is at least 1/2″ shy of correct with my current arrangement. Hopefully, Grayboe will simply offer a higher comb piece to slip in later so that those in my condition can simply buy one that starts 3/4″ higher. Failing that, I will have to add a polymer clay riser to the cheek piece as fit is of paramount importance to performance. It should also be noted that in order to clean the rifle, the Grayboe cheek piece must be fully lowered or removed. It does not have a snap-off feature as some premium aftermarket units like the Warner do. It also doesn’t have lateral adjustment, though I have never really found that to be of great importance and don’t use it on my 3-position rifle even though I have it.

Upcoming plans

Grayboe currently offers just four stock models, with only the Ridgeback being adjustable out of the box. They are, of course, planning to expand this. Additionally, they are continuing to fine tune the molding process and other aspects of the manufacture. I mentioned earlier that the inletting for my bedding revealed some voids. These are time consuming to fill and not ideal to have. There is therefore room for improvement in the process both in terms of price and quality. Grayboe is also working on weight reduction by tinkering with the fibers and matrix so at some point I expect we will see carbon models.

Conclusion

The pricing on Grayboe stocks is closer to that of a polymer stock than a traditional composite. Without question, though, its performance and characteristics are much closer those of a traditional composite stock. In a few respects, such as the M-lok fore end and drop in performance, I think it is superior to a traditional composite. In a few other ways, including the alterations necessary to fit custom parts; the appearance; the number of models available; and the weight, I think it gives up ground to traditional hand laid composites. The very comparison though is quite telling. At $600 with DBM bottom metal, these stocks are an excellent value. I am quite satisfied to have my excellent new Kelbly rifle wearing one.

Pros and Cons

Pros:
– It is very affordable at $600 with DBM bottom metal
– Harmonics, recoil absorption, and temperature and moisture stability characteristics are similar to traditional composites
– Stiff and strong
– Aluminum pillars are molded in and perfectly spaced
– Inletting dimensions in general are correct
– Very nicely machinable for bedding and other add-ons
– Feature rich with a bubble level, M-lok fore end, and adjustable LOP and comb
– Durable paint used with a variety of colors available
– Recoil pad included is a good one
– Well designed for good performance, bedded or unbedded

Cons:
– The adjustable comb has limited range and does not go high enough for many users
– The grip area will not provide good hand position for probably 90% of users
– You get the M-lok but no attachments so you will be out $50 for sling and bipod attachment points
– Stock is inherently not a custom piece and will require alteration for many actions

The post Grayboe Ridgeback Composite Stock Review appeared first on Snipers Hide.

Kelbly’s Golden Girl Arcas, Nyx, and Atlas Tactical

Introduction

A lot has changed since I met Ian back in 2010. At that time I was just starting to do scope reviews and Kelbly’s was the distributor for March optics. They were one of the leading benchrest rifle makers, but benchrest is not a huge market and they were not well known outside of it. Since then they have become much better known outside of benchrest and their production has increased by more than 6x. The CNC machines have multiplied and they have entirely filled their once spacious factory capacity. I was quite surprised at the magnitude of the change. What has not changed is the basic quality product. They continue to produce rifles with exceptionally tight tolerances and with well over 30 years of knowledge about what works and why. This is an exceptional degree of experience and proven track record. Their rifles currently hold 53 world records across a variety of disciplines and have more wins than anybody bothered to keep track of. That is probably a little embarrassing in a discipline that prides itself on accounting for every round down the barrel.

Table of Contents
– Background on the Build
– Components
– – Stock and Bottom Metal (Grayboe Ridgeback stock Mesa Precision bottom metal)
– – Trigger (Bix’n Andy TacSport)
– – Barrel (Krieger)
– – Action (Kelbly’s Atlas Tactical)
– Accuracy and Ammo
– – Lapua
– – Copper Creek
– – Desert Tech
– – Hornady
– – Federal
– The Shooting Experience
– Cost
– Summary

Background on the Build

I have been kicking around doing a Kelbly build for quite a few years now. Specifically, I wanted a .223 that could really do bug holes. .223 is far cheaper than anything else to reload. People seem more than willing to just leave me large lots of very serviceable Lake City Brass, .224 bullets are light and therefore lower cost than most other calibers, and .223 has excellent barrel life. Ballistically, it makes a good training round and is also useful for caliber limited competitions and blowing up groundhogs. Having the Grayboe stock come in for review gave me the excuse for this long wanted .223. To really do the Grayboe review properly I wanted to go the whole nine yards and bed the thing myself so I could really see how it was put together. With all that work upcoming anyway and product in hand, it seemed like the stars were aligning. Ian had also been interested in doing a review for a few years so all that was left was to round up the rest of the components.

Components

Stock and Bottom Metal

You can view the Grayboe review in its entirety at the link given here. Suffice it to say that after having the stock on hand for a bit, I was reasonably sure that it was going to work pretty well. The features were to my liking and what geometry was not could be easily fixed. Having tested the inletting on another Remington pattern action, I was also sure that the fit was good. For bottom metal, I used the Mesa Precision Arms DBM. This is what Garyboe was using at the time, is of very good quality, and, with a barricade stop and Mickey Mouse style mag release, has some features I like.

Over the course of the review, I bedded both the action and the bottom metal in the Grayboe stock using Acraglas Gel and also added a polymer clay detachable palm swell.

Trigger

For a while now I have been unable to escape talk of this Bix’n Andy trigger with balls that has been brought over from Austria.. I kept hearing that it didn’t just work differently but actually WORKED differently (you can figure that one out.) When I saw that Kelbly’s had decided to make them the standard trigger on all their rifles. This made a particular impression on me since not that long ago, Kelbly’s had actually manufactured high performing, exceptionally low pull weight, triggers themselves. I had the card of the Bix’n Andy importer Bullet Central from some year at Shot Show so I gave them a call and they told me they had a new TacSport Pro model coming that they were interested in me trying out. At that time I was intending to just do a small sub-section of the review about the trigger. However, I became more interested in the intricacies of the ball trigger concept, and the text kept growing into a full review of the Bix’n Andy TacSport product line.

Barrel

We are blessed in this country with a wide selection of truly match quality barrel makers. This has kept quality high and prices better than fair, with far lower than average rates of inflation, in an industry that has seen runaway price increases in many areas. Of these excellent barrel makers, Krieger is possibly the most well known. Their particular marketing focus is on the custom steel they use and the stress free single point cut rifling method. I went with them because they are one of several makers that I think are at the top of the heap and a blank of proper caliber, length, contour, and twist was in stock.

Action

Kelbly’s makes two actions for the tactical crowd as well as a variety of benchrest and F class actions. All of these are actually manufactured on site, to exacting tolerances of 1/1000th on the headspace, on a series of Mazak CNC machines and a brand new Sodick EDM machine. Their tolerances are such that barrels can actually be ordered from them without sending in the action to headspace as the dimensions are already known. The user can then install barrels with an action wrench and barrel vice. As barrel makers are beginning to more commonly chamber barrels, there have been discussions with a few regarding chambering to the exacting specs that Kelbly uses in the future to allow for direct user installation.

Because of the use of the Grayboe stock, which is designed for Remington semi-clone actions, I chose Kelbly’s Atlas tactical for the build. This action is also used in their popular NYX rifle that features an XLR carbon chassis. The other tactical action option is their new flagship Black Bear action. This is a rectangular footprint action that is stiffer, offers more bedding area, and features an integral recoil lug and rail.

Both of Kelbly’s tactical actions have basically the same bolt and therefore operating features. The bolt is 2 lug with 90 degree throw. In one lug, it has a springless mechanical type ejector that Kelbly calls the TG ejector. This ejector puts no pressure on the case in the chamber, is not dependent on a tightly fit spring loaded plunger, and allows the user to control how far the brass is thrown. It is actuated by a pin in the heavy duty side mounted bolt stop. If that one isn’t heavy duty enough for you, you can actually buy a stationary one which screws down. I find pin type ejectors far preferable to the spring and plunger designs that I can bind and also toss my brass to the seven winds. The other locking lug houses the extractor. It is not a Sako or m16 type, but is a spring loaded system and therefore most similar to those, though it slides in a channel rather than rotating. Housing the extractor in the lug makes for a very flat ejection that will not be interfered with by big tactical elevation knobs on scopes. There are good arguments for this type of extractor and also for the stationary Mauser claw type (though really no arguments for garbage Remington clip type). Sprung types like the Kelbly offer better cartridge head support and single load better, whereas the Mauser claw type have controlled round feed and allow for more extraction force on a stuck case.

Kelbly’s shows its benchrest background with the trigger hanger it uses on all its actions. Benchrest guys often glue their action into the stock and so must have a hanger to remove the trigger. The hanger generally makes removal and installation of the trigger easier as you are not trying to pound pins into a slick round action that likes to spin. The trigger hanger would also allow for adjustment of the firing pin fall should your trigger be a little out of spec.

A few specs on the Atlas have been altered a bit from stock 700 dimensions and I will mention them as some stocks will need a little alteration. First, the trigger hanger protrudes slightly behind the rear of the trigger and this usually necessitates a little removal of material from stocks. Similarly, the ejection port is longer than a stock 700 and so some stocks will need a little material removed at the back of the port as well. As is common, the recoil lug is thicker than a factory 700’s lug and the Kelbly one further has a trapezoidal shape which makes it almost full width at the top. This shape, combined with the fact that it is pinned, allows the bedding to be extended to under the lug as it will not lock on the sides so you get a little more bedding area from the design. The inletting in the underside of the action is also a little larger and the action can feed off AW magazines, if you are so inclined, though I recommend the more reliable AICS design that also doesn’t spill its guts when you drop a mag. The rail is also different than Remington spec as it does not have the flat drop in the back and is pinned. You can get the rail in whatever cant you want.

In the manufacture of actions, Kelbly’s has employed significant economies of scale to reduce costs and has further chosen to translate those lowered costs to lowered prices. For instance, the recent EDM machine for the bolt raceways saves a tremendous amount of time over broaching them. At $999 on the Atlas and $1,400 on the black bear these actions, especially the Atlas, are significantly less expensive than their closest competitors and very close to the lowest cost custom actions in market. It is my opinion that they therefore offer an excellent value on some of the most precise actions in the market.

Accuracy and Ammo

If you are expecting me to give you some great revelations though my testing of this rifle from a maker that holds 53 world accuracy records (actually it is more, they only update the accuracy records once a year on the web), then you’re going to be a little disappointed. I don’t personally hold any of those records and between my skill level, and  shooting without free recoil from conventional bags as I did, I am not about to set any. That being said, I was interested to see what a rifle like this might be expected to do right out of the box with factory ammo. I have been hearing for awhile that through changes in the automated loading equipment available, as well as changes to importing arrangements, much better loaded ammo is now available and for more reasonable prices.

While I certainly expect that ammo, like most things that are manufactured (and, unlike say pharmaceuticals, subject to actual free market pressures), will get both better and more affordable, ammo has some unique issues to overcome regarding the getting better part. The issues stem not from making ammo more uniform but rather from its fit to any particular rifle. Much of accuracy derives not from the uniformity of the ammo but from its fit to the rifle. This is why some competitive .22lr shooters go to all the work of sending their rifle to a testing facility and then buying an entire lifetime worth of ammo in one purchase. Lot testing is a roundabout way of getting to what handloaders do for centerfire with load development. A handloader often starts with a brass and bullet he intends to use and varies the powder, charge, seating depth, and neck tension to find a combination that fits the rifle best. The theory of why this matters so much has to do with how a barrel vibrates, creating nodes and internodal spaces, as well as with how the bullet exits the case and enters the lands. Basically, you want it to enter the lands straight and exit the barrel at a node. This can all be even further complicated if you shoot long range and therefore need the standard deviation on the velocity to be low, want a high velocity, and might even be tempted to try those devilishly picky VLD bullet Oglives that make for lower drag but also make you pull your hair out. This all makes the manufacture of precision loaded ammunition much trickier than just putting some high tolerance components together carefully, within SAAMI standards, and shipping it. Some combinations have a good fit in more rifles than others but you need to do a lot of different testing to find this out and, in the end, your results will still be varied. I am saying all this because the data you are about to partake of is effected by all of these things.  Being the best in one rifle does not mean the best in all rifles and being the best on average for all rifles might not mean the best for yours. This is an interesting test nevertheless for giving you an idea of the sort of results you might expect using a variety of excellent factory loaded ammo in an excellent custom precision rifle.

I carried out the accuracy testing with factory ammo over the course of three shooting days with the bulk being done in one marathon 7-hour day when the weather was just right. Testing was done  at 100 yds shooting from a concrete bench with a Bulls Bag front and a rear bag of my own design. I tried testing both with and without the magnetospeed chronograph and saw no accuracy difference so did all of the long day with the chrono. All rounds were mag fed five at a time. I took a break every 30 – 40 rounds when the barrel started to heat up and mirage. I cleaned during each break because I had nothing else to do and wanted to keep as close to uniform conditions for each ammo as possible. The scope I used was a Sightron SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH set to 24x mounted in a Bobro dual lever precision optic mount. Magnification, rests, and non-free recoiling position considered, I think it would be fair to say that my hold is not reliably better than .25″ in this configuration.

Lapua

Lapua is a Finnish company. This is significant as Finland is a country with a population roughly the same as Minnesota but which defeated the U.S.S.R. – in war, not hockey, which Minnesota might actually be able do. The Lapua ammunition factory, at that time a state entity, was the primary supplier to Finland for those conflicts during which sharpshooting became a key tactic of the vastly outnumbered Finnish forces. Long range precision shooting is now baked into the culture. Lapua has found a great deal of success in the U.S. market, primarily in precision .22lr and in ammunition brass. They have seen less penetration with their bullets not because they are poor but because there is actually stiff competition in domestic precision bullet manufacture. Lately, Lapua has been expanding their loaded ammunition offerings and I had heard very good things. Lapua was the best performing ammo in my rifle by a huge margin and, on the best shooting condition day, averaged better than .5″ at100 yards with the best group being under .25″. The average of the Lapua groups on that day was actually slightly better than the best single group from anything else. In general, I would be very impressed with any factory ammo that averages sub .5″, but it is even more impressive with .223 because .223, with its short neck and long skinny case, is one of the trickier things to get right.

Copper Creek

Copper Creek Ammo is a relatively small scale U.S. maker that offers both standard loaded ammo and a unique two-stage load development option that sort of approximates the handloading procedure by varying first powder charge and then seating depth. In the procedure, you fire one group with each of 5 charges, pick the best, measure your chamber with the Hornady OAL gauge, and have them send you a second set of loads. These next 5 loads each have the charge you chose but with a different depth of seating. I was intrigued by this as it attempts to overcome the biggest challenge that factory ammo has, namely, the aspect of fit to the rifle. Since it has been my experience that something always goes at least a little wrong, I had them send me 10 instead of 5 of each charge weight. Basically, a double load development pack.

In practice, the Copper Creek load pack put me right into my handloading mindset. What I mean by this is that there were specific things that I wanted to do based on what I saw and felt. For instance, one of the blue rounds closed hard and then, not surprisingly, flew out of an otherwise tight group. The Kelbly rifle has a tight chamber and it probably bumped the lands a little. I wanted to try that load but bump the rounds back a little. The purple and black charges both were OK but not great, leaving me to think that perhaps there was a node between them and I wanted to split the difference in charge and try that. What I am sure of is that, although there are certainly times in the load development process where I have only fired 5 rounds with a particular combination, 5 is only enough to make a negative call and not a positive one. I might move on from a bad 5 but I would never stick with a good one without confirming it with a few more groups. The 10 rounds each that I had instead of 5 was immeasurably better, though, and I can confidently say I am satisfied that the red loads were clearly the best. Some of my motivation for wanting more is because of this in that, at 2413fps, the reds are the lowest charge and provide a lower effective range for the rifle than I could have if there does happen to be a node between purple and black. I guess that the most insightful thing I can say about the Copper Creek load pack experience, beyond that you need to buy more than one, is that I think, on average, it will yield a better load for users than not using it, but that users may not feel like it does because the limitations of the process will be so obvious.

Speaking of options and removing limitations, Copper Creek gives you a lot of options as they can simply make ammo for you to your own already tested load specifications. They also keep the load data for any ammo you’ve developed with them on file permanently and will give you the load recipe after you have purchased only 100 rounds of loaded ammo. This is a pretty astounding degree of customizability.

Desert Tech

Desert Tech is another smaller scale U.S. maker. They are probably better known for their rifles, which are totally unique designs that are unusual both in their focus on bull pup configurations and in their easy caliber convertibility. The rifles are quite innovative and have a very good reputation. The ammo has likewise been gaining an excellent reputation, particularly in the 6.5CM caliber which has a .5MOA guarantee. I am doing a review of a rifle in 6.5CM later this year and so contacted Desert Tech primarily for that ammo. Desert Tech was good enough to provide some .223 for this review as well. Their .223 is a much lower cost ammo than the 6.5CM ammo, is a varmint rather than match round, and uses a 55gr crimped Hornady v-max bullet. In practice, the mid priced 55gr varmint round performed pretty well for the cost at just under 1″ at 100 yds.

Hornady

Hornady has been making a big push lately into long range precision shooting with their 6.5CM cartridge and the support they offered it at launch by providing high quality, affordable, loaded ammo for it. Hornady has also done a good deal of work on polymer tipped bullets, overcoming the intrinsic accuracy challenges in order to realize aerodynamic advantages. True to its general trend, the Hornady match ammo used here was very affordable at 75 cents a round.

Federal

It was not that long ago that Federal Gold Medal Match was the only “premium” option for most users. There were not many quality factory loads and FGGM was the only one likely to be carried by your local retailer. Of course, a dramatic increase in interest in the shooting sports coupled with the widening of options made possible by the internet has changed all that. Strangely, though advertised as a match round, this ammo featured a sealed and crimped primer pocket. It also neither looked nor performed particularly well being the only ammo to average over 1″ groups.

The Shooting Experience

Looking through your scope at a tiny little piece of steel on the other side of the valley, there are so many ways to miss and so few ways to hit. Having all these things to think about can tempt you to doing so. Paradoxically, thinking about all of the things you must do right is also one of the many wrong things so do. To hit with any reliability, you must be focused on just the few things unique to this shot. To get this done, you have to have a lot of confidence in, and comfort with, all equipment and data involved. You need to be certain just how the whole package, rifle, scope, ammunition, and even trigger, are going to behave.

I mention all of this by way of trying to explain the pleasing confident feeling I have had shooting the Kelbly’s .223 rifle at range. It is predictable, precise, and comfortable. There are a lot of parts involved in this. My scope is one I have tested and verified. The Lapua ammo is sub .5moa and I have taken good chrono data on it to produce a good chart. I have laser verified the target ranges. Even the trigger break of the Bix’n Andy plays a part and cleanly breaks with the same feel of pressure each time I actuate it from the thick, ugly, wart of a palm swell I have screwed to the stock. The rifle is an important part of all this machinery working together to punish that little 6″ plate at 675yds. Yea, I’m enjoying shooting some steel with this rifle.

Cost

Kelbly’s builds custom rifles and the one I put together was no exception. Essentially, I had them put together a barreled action and then I added the stock, trigger, bottom metal, and, eventually, bedded it myself. The cost for all of this is broken down as follows:

Atlas Tactical action: $999.00
Krieger .22 Cal Rem Varmint contour blank: $345
Chamber, crown, thread (5/8×24), thread protector, install: $450
Bix N Andy Tacsport: $235
Grayboe Ridgeback + Mesa Precision bottom metal: $599
AICS .223 mag: $39
Acraglas gel: $22
Palm swell materials: $18

Total: $2,707 + tax

Kelbly’s does make a few rifles that are closer to models. These are the NYX, which is an Atlas tactical based rifle in an XLR chassis for $3,300 and the Arcas Tactical, which is an Atlas tactical bedded in Kelbly’s KTS composite stock for $4,500. I expect that, now that they are making the Black Bear action, the Arcas rifles will be commonly based on that.

Summary

Being an action manufacturer, rifle maker, gunsmith, shooting tournament host, and stock manufacturer, Kelbly’s does a lot of things. So many, that we really didn’t even talk about the composite stock manufacture or the shooting tournament. They have been doing all of this for so long that the third generation of Kelbly family members, in the business, are now involved in the day-to-day operations. That degree of experience breeds a great deal of competence, quality, and efficiency. I have been fortunate enough to spend a lot of hours over the years sitting in the Kelbly office in front of a wall that basically illustrates a 40 year history of competition rifles and talking concepts, tolerances, and analyzing, often with piece in hand, a variety of different products from a variety of different makers. It’s a lot of understanding, but probably even more germaine, it is perspective. This has been an important part of my education in the shooting sports. What I think Kelbly’s really boils down to, from the consumer standpoint , is a truly world class product and workmanship, for what is only an average custom rifle cost.

The post Kelbly’s Atlas Tactical Custom Rifle and Action Review appeared first on Snipers Hide.

Shooting steel at 1000yds with the Mesa Precision Arms Crux

Introduction

I first learned of the Mesa Precision Arms guys when I was doing the Grayboe Ridgeback stock review earlier this year. Prior to using their own branded bottom metal, Grayboe used the MESA bottom metal. While sourcing the bottom metal for the Grayboe review from MESA, they asked me if I would like to do a review of a custom rifle built by them with their soon to be released titanium action. They are a fairly new shop, started in 2017, and were looking to get their name out as well as get a little third party validation that they know what they are doing.

I tend to do a lot of research before agreeing to a review. This is because if the product does not do well I will give it a bad review. Bad reviews don’t just ruffle the feathers of the folks who make the product, but also tend to make other companies a bit shy about having their products reviewed. These reviews also are of little help to a reader since they just introduce one product from among what is usually a faceless horde of products only to say that it is no good. This doesn’t help the reader much since he is still left with the horde to choose from.  I avoid all this as much as possible by doing substantial research before accepting a review. 

What I found researching Mesa is that it is a partnership of two guys with resumes that looked encouraging. Chad Drayer served two years as a scout sniper in the Marines before working for U.S. Optics for seven years. John Hakes also served in the Marines. Since then, John has become an accomplished long range precision hunter, recently added to Proof’s pro staff. He built rifles at Red Hawk rifles for a number of years before they decided to stop building rifles to concentrate on online retail. Having plenty of experience at that time, John decided to partner with Chad and start his own shop.

John and Chad’s history, connections with others in the industry, and what I had read about Red Hawk’s rifles during the period John worked there, convinced me that their rifle would probably be well made and so we worked up some specs for one of their specialties, a lightweight Crux hunting rifle to review.

Table of Contents
– Introduction
– Fit and Finish
– Components
– – Stock (McMillan Adjustable Game Warden in Edge Carbon)
– – Titanium vs Steel Action
– – Action (Mesa Precision Arms Crux Titanium)
– – Trigger (TriggerTech Primary)
– – Barrel (Proof Carbon wrapped)
– Ammo Background
– Accuracy Testing
– – Federal
– – Desert Tech
– – Copper Creek
– – Hornady
– The Shooting Experience
– Summary

Fit and Finish

The Mesa Precision Arms Crux arrived in a custom cut foam lined Pelican case looking every bit an object of desire. Even the FFL was impressed. This custom case gave the unboxing the feel of Christmas as a kid. Beyond adding to the initial joy of acquisition, this packaging is pretty important, and functional, for both the long range hunter and competitive shooter. Both of these hobbies involve subjecting your precision shooting instruments to the rank abuse of the American aviation system. A perfectly custom cut foam Pelican style box is really the best way to reliably weather that maelstrom, provided they don’t lose the gun outright – never a guarantee. MESA must have, or contract, one of those fancy automated optical foam cutting machines because their fit is perfect.

The rifle itself is an arrangement of carbon, titanium, steel, and aluminum in which function flatters form instead of the other way around. The visible carbon in the McMillan stock and Proof barrel see to that, reflecting light like jewelry. MESA surprised me by adding a filled BigJimFish engraving with a little SnipersHide logo on the scope rail in red. It is both a nice touch aesthetically and personally. Taking things apart, the fit and finish continued to impress. The bedding and inletting are sharp and tight, and the fit is good. The Barrel is floated straight in the channel and the inletting shows no gaps around the action or bottom metal. I take all this seriously not because ugly bedding jobs can’t be good, but because attention to detail in appearance speaks well of attention to detail everywhere. The finish on the metal components is clean with all the edges well-melted and a nice matching bead blast on the action and barrel. I would suggest plugging the action during bead blast in the future, though, as the raceway would feel slicker without the surface finish and nobody can see it anyway.

Stock

The Crux rifle in this review is wearing an adjustable Game Warden stock from McMillan Composite stocks in their Edge Carbon. A carbon composite stock is the clear choice for a custom hunting rifle. This type of stock consists of a molded outer shell made up of epoxy impregnated carbon fiber fabric filled with a lighter density fill material. The resulting product has the strongest, stiffest material on the outside and a lighter fill inside. This works sort of like an I-beam or bird bone:  minimizing the material and weight in less structurally critical areas and maximizing it where it matters most. Furthermore, the materials involved are very temperature stable and harmonically dampening. Composite stocks are therefore strong, stiff, light, temperature stable, and harmonically dampening. In fact, they lead all technologies in most of these areas. For these reasons, composite stocks have dominated the competitive shooting sports for 40 years. The only downside is that, with 8+ man hours in making each one, they are not cheap. This labor intensity does have the upside of resulting in a highly customizable product since variations such as more flush cups, different color, different LOP, or different recoil pad do not cause much disruption in an already very hands-on manufacturing process. Composite stocks can also be some of the best looking stocks and can be finished in a variety of ways all the way up to the automotive airbrush painting common in benchrest and f-class competition rifles. These can be works of art on par with custom choppers. Another attractive finish that is a bit less costly is the exposed carbon look on the stock in this review. This look is well suited for a field rifle and can be augmented, as in this example, with a variety of different camo sponge paint accents. The Edge Carbon Game Warden in this review is the first carbon composite McMillan that I have had and I was quite taken with the appearance of the sponge painted visible carbon, especially in conjunction with the Carbon Proof barrel. In both cases, the carbon has the effect of adding depth to the appearance as well as reflecting light differently at different angles to add movement. The appearance is one of luxury, quality, and beauty, and will not be mistaken for cheap plastic even at a casual glance. This look is a great compliment to the superior functional aspects of the carbon composite stock.

McMillan is one of the oldest players in the rifle stock market. They have been making composite stocks since the early 70s. Since then they have grown to become the largest composite stock maker in the world by both volume and number of models. Probably most iconic is the M40A1 stock they developed for the Marine Corps in 1975, though the A5, which was developed in 2002 and released in 2003 with a great deal of input from the folks right here at SnipersHide, is currently the most popular model. McMillan is also well represented in the shooting sports and has a long history of being adopted as an OEM for rifle makers’ premium models. There are even a few cases where rifle makers intended to use a cheap plastic stock originally but did not make contract accuracy specs with the plastic and ended up using a McMillan to improve the accuracy and make spec.

The particular model of stock that I chose, the adjustable Game Warden, offers a very lightweight option for an adjustable cheek piece hunting stock (mine weighs in at just 2.56 lbs bedded) that also accommodates the larger diameter Proof barrel that I would be using. This is not a very common combination of capabilities and it is what I needed. I have high cheek bones and very low tolerance for poor fit of the rifle to the shooter. The bit of three position shooting I have done has given me a great appreciation for the importance of fit to accuracy. I found the folks at McMillan helpful and knowledgeable both during this build process and in the past for other projects when I was not an author on SnipersHide and was instead a less than ideal potential customer trying to jam an Anschutz 54 Sporter into a stock never intended for that purpose. McMillan has gone out of its way on more than one occasion for me. That is really the definition of custom.

Titanium vs Steel Action

Whether it be guns, golf clubs, race cars, springs, or orthopedic implants, titanium and steel are often suggested as alternative material choices for the application involved. The strength, flexibility, corrosion resistance (in the case of stainless) and lack of toxicity can be quite similar, depending on the alloys involved, between these two elements. In the case of this action, the alloy we will be speaking of is Grade 5 Ti-6AL-4V titanium.

Comparing this alloy with the variety of steel alloys used in actions will yield a few general trends. The first and most obvious trend is that the titanium (“Ti”) is about 40% lighter per volume. It is a common misconception that titanium is also stronger. By weight this is certainly the case, but by volume the comparable steels will be a little stronger. Both materials have good flexibility properties in that they flex and return to original size without fatigue, or strain hardening, over a fairly large range. This is why Ti and steel alloys are the most common spring materials in industry. The titanium flexes more easily however, and this does mean that in a Ti rifle your brass casings will flex many times more, wear quicker, and could cause harder bold lift in high pressure loads. While stainless, as its name implies, does have corrosion resistance, it has nothing on Ti, which is basically immune to corrosion at normal atmospheric temperatures even in the presence of salt. Ti can be made fairly hard at about 36 Rockwell C, but steel is commonly harder than that and this hardness, combined with less of a tendency to gall, makes steel actions feel smoother and want for less lubrication than Ti. Despite Ti’s corrosion resistance, titanium actions do not run well dry.

The dominance that steel enjoys, in terms of prevalence, over titanium does not result from hardness and strength advantages. This dominance has far more to do with the costs of the raw material and, to the greatest extent, costs and expertise to machine. In cost of raw material, titanium is somewhere around twice the cost of steel for similar quality stuff, but in terms of machining, it is often said to be about five times more costly once slower feed speeds, greater tool wear, and various other things like the chance of its little shavings catching fire are considered.

The sum of all this comparison is that you are probably not going to use titanium for the PRS rifle that you are going to go through barrels and brass like water with, but if you are looking to make a lightweight hunting rifle, a titanium action that saves you a 1/2 lb is the clear choice if you can afford it.

Crux Action

The Crux Titanium action is a Remington 700 semi-clone action. It departs from the 700 slightly in the larger, pinned, trapezoidal recoil lug, the side mounted bolt stop, a longer cut for the mag box (works both with AICS mags or internal box mag), and different mountings for the rail or rings. Most 700 chassis and stocks will easily accommodate all this with no alterations, however. The Crux is designed to accept either a rail of your choice cant or Nesika Bay style pinned rings for those looking for a more traditional hunting appearance. The bolt knob on the Crux is also threaded on so if you desire to change it that is not a big deal. The bolt has an attractive hexagonal fluting that I have not seen before. It is a little change in appearance for those looking for different, though it concerns me a little since the individual honey comb cavities have depth, and a front wall, and so could trap a pebble between the back of the ejection port and the front of a cavity arresting the rearward motion of the bolt. The bottom of the bolt is not fluted so it won’t scratch the brass and feels a bit smoother cycling. As is often the case on a titanium action, the entire bolt and locking lugs are steel instead of titanium. This, as well as the DLC coating on the bolt, mitigates problems with galling that titanium can have. The steel locking lugs also lessen the springiness titanium has during firing. I did not notice any hard bolt lift on the action even with the lower 75 degree throw that it has to increase bolt cycling speed and make for greater clearance of the scope. The Crux uses an M16 style extractor and a plunger ejector. The extractor is one of the designs I like, though I am not a big fan of plunger ejectors. Plunger ejectors do have the advantage over passive mechanical systems of ejecting the same at any extraction speed, but they can sometimes clog and bind, put pressure on your case in the chamber, and you have no control over how far they throw your brass. I found the fit and finish of the Crux action to be very good. I liked the toolless bolt disassembly feature they added as well. The 75 degree lift did not cause any of the issues with hard bolt lift I was worried about, so I found it a win. The total weight of the action is 20.8 oz with bolt vs. around 29.5 oz for one of the lighter steel custom actions available. This is better than half a pound in weight savings. These actions are not just available in MESA built rifles but can also be purchased alone for $1,399.

Trigger

It seems destined to me this year to examine, and be spoiled by, all the new, non-conventional trigger technologies of the past few years. I first examined the Bix’n Andy ball trigger concept and now I have here both a Trigger Tech Primary and Diamond with their FRT, TKR, and CLKR technologies. Acronyms, gross. CLKR just means that they have put clicks in the pull weight adjustment screw. Interestingly, Triggertech felt they needed to name, and acronym, clicks in the pull weight screw. It’s nice, but really doesn’t merit talking about. However, they did not name their double redundant safety cams that seem worth a mention to me, given the occasional problems trigger safeties have with immediately firing when the safety is taken off. That tendency has resulted in some unspeakable tragedies as well as some lawsuits for Remington. TriggerTech could have called the system the DRSC and added to their Acronym Badass Score (ABS). TKR refers to Trigger Techs over travel stop system. That is how they present it anyway. While it does do that, it is really more integral to the function of the whole system than just an over-travel stop. It also lessens the overall travel necessary for the trigger, a concern when adding a roller to the sear mechanism, and allows for looser tolerances on a few of the parts in the trigger. This brings us to the biggest tech difference, the one that really put Trigger Tech on the map:  the FRT or Frictionless Release Technology. In simplest terms, FRT is a roller that is interposed between the two sear surfaces to replace the sliding friction with much lower rolling resistance. Doing this basically allows for much greater sear engagement without the user noticing any creep. The combination of the TKR and FRT components of the trigger tech system makes for a little bit of complexity in the release. Basically, the trigger releases in two distinct parts. In the first part the trigger and ticker move as one. This rolls the roller forward between the topsear and ticker until it reaches the edge of the topsear sear surface and the topsear starts to fall. At this point the trigger impinges on the case and stops moving as if is has been stopped by an overtravel adjust screw. However, the ticker continues to move forward being pushed from behind by the falling topsear’s action on the roller. This allows the trigger pull to be shorter than it otherwise would have to be to accommodate both a roller in the sear system and a robust sear engagement. It also allows for a lot more slop in the system such as you might need if it were filthy.

My thought on the Trigger Tech is that it is a very clever design that has some substantial upsides. The roller and ticker allow for a lot of sear engagement without feeling it in creep. You will not feel any creep in this just as you don’t feel any in an aftermarket trigger tuned to have almost no sear engagement. However, the TriggerTech will be reliable and safe ,whereas a conventionally designed trigger set to almost no engagement will not be. With conventional designs, creep is essentially the price you pay for safety and reliability. The roller eliminates that price on the TriggerTech design. A price that would be paid for this is more overall movement of the trigger during firing. By adding the ticker though, the trigger only travels a little more than half of the sear engagement distance, with the ticker traveling the rest of the way with no further trigger movement. The effect of this is basically that it feels like it has overtravel even though it technically has less than no overtravel since the sear continues to move after the trigger stops. The overall travel distance can feel a little longer than most aftermarket triggers to me. At least, it did on the Primary though not so much on the premium Diamond model. Given that some European match triggers don’t even have an overtravel stop, I don’t think that is such a big deal. This is especially true at low pull weights. Really, the lighter the trigger, the less I think it matters. The ticker, being attached to the trigger, rather than the case, further allows for less case contact by the internals. TriggerTech has a couple raised guides on the trigger and case and otherwise leaves a lot of clearance around the parts to prevent dirt from fouling things up. I have no doubts regarding Trigger Techs claims that these things are as close to dirt proof as you can get. Not only is that good for safety, but their dual cam safety system is as well. I will never feel great about any trigger safety, but I do feel better about this one than others since it not only holds up the topsear but also keeps the rest of the mechanism engaged when set to safe. In my pull testing, I found the pull-to-pull break weight variance on the TriggerTech Primary right in line with conventional technology aftermarket triggers whereas the Diamond was significantly better than average. Significantly, most of those conventional triggers had the advantage of being lubed. This is an advantage in indoor bench top testing that is decidedly a disadvantage in a dusty field environment.

There is some associated trade-off in the TriggerTech system. While I do not have the advanced equipment necessary to test it, I expect the lock time is going to be greater on the TriggerTech than on conventionally designed aftermarket triggers. The roller just makes for a lot more movement between when the shooter perceives the trigger break and when the cocking piece releases from the topsear. The topsear reset force is also potentially increased, depending on what pull weight you set the trigger to, by the use of the ticker component over potential designs without that innovation. This is because the reset force includes both a traditional reset spring and, through the ticker, the much stronger pull weight adjust spring. Importantly, however, this makes the reset force come in stages and the cocking piece will already be moving when it encounters the stronger second stage. In testing, both the TriggerTech Primary and Diamond had about half the topsear reset force of a conventional trigger before the ticker engaged. After the point the ticker engages, the topsear reset force varied from about the same as a conventional trigger at min pull weight to between two and 3 times the reset force and maximum pull weight.  These trade-offs are things benchrest shooters think about, but I don’t think most shooters will ever notice. Competitive shooters will have to weigh the advantage of a trigger that has no creep and is basically immune to fouling to those that will break faster with less drag on the cocking piece but are either creepy or unreliable. Given the popularity of the Diamond trigger on the PRS circuit, at least one competitive discipline has weighed in on the value of TriggerTech’s innovations.

Barrel

The barrel of a hunting rifle has always been a place of manifold compromises. Making a barrel light is no problem. A featherweight contour barrel is less than 2 lbs for a 26″ barrel. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to be accurate with this. While the mass of the rifle is part of this difficulty, it is a small part. The whipiness, lack of thermal mass, and small surface area for heat dissipation are larger difficulties. These light contour barrels flex easily and so if the crown is not exactly on a vibration node, shots are thrown wildly. This can be addressed, to some extent, with careful hand loads (not something hunters are really known for), but that still leaves the heat dissipation problems. With so little steel to share and radiate the heat of shots, the barrel overheats and looses accuracy in just a few shots – often, as few as 3 or 4. Fluting has also been sought as a solution, but it saves little weight and often creates problems of its own having to do with uneven cooling and uneven effects on stresses in the barrel created during the manufacture. Fluting looks tacticool, though, and that is really the primary reason folks do it. Carbon fiber, being light and stiff, has been sought as a solution for some time. The idea is simple:  Wrap a really thin steel barrel with carbon fiber and it becomes both light and even stiffer than a steel barrel of the same weight. The difficulty is that carbon fiber is an excellent insulator across the grain. It is therefore tricky to keep the POI from shifting as the barrel heats up. It is also difficult to keep the carbon wrap adhered to the barrel with some of the resulting inferno-like temperatures resulting and the difference in the rates of expansion between steel and the carbon composite. I remember when the first carbon wrapped barrels starting coming out and they were pretty terrible. They didn’t just heat up and walk shots around, though they certainly did that. They also tended to delaminate such that you could spin the carbon tube around the steel barrel inside like a wheel on an axel. This, unsurprisingly, could even lead to catastrophic barrel failure though, it would not in the barrels Proof is producing today, as the steel core is pressure tested alone. Just as there is a lot of variation in core dimensions between different carbon composite barrel makers there is also a great deal of difference in the resin used to hold the carbon to the core, the manner of application of the carbon to the core, the geometry and alignment of the carbon in the barrel, and the composition of the resin used to bind the carbon. It is most accurate to view each of the different carbon utilizing barrel makers now in existence as entirely different technologies from each other.

Given the history of carbon wrapped barrels, when Proof sort of re-introduced itself with it’s second generation barrels at Shot Show a few years ago, I was pretty skeptical, and said so. I have heard good things since though regarding both the accuracy and heat dissipation of the barrels.

My experience so far is that the Proof carbon barrel is plenty accurate, going less than .5″ @ 100 yds with one of the tested ammunitions. Its added stiffness over steel does not seem to yield noticeable improvements in ammo tolerance over steel of the same contour, however. The worst fitting match grade ammo shoots just over 1″ @ 100 yds. This is about the same as I have seen from other match grade rifles paired with match grade ammo that is not a good fit for the particular rifle. The barrel seems to heat up and cool down at about the same rate as other barrels of similar contour, though this is a rough estimation since I do not have other 6.5CM rifles for a direct comparison or the sort of laboratory thermal imaging best suited for the analysis. Proof has done this testing and claims quicker cooling vs. comparable steel barrels.

The one negative that I have noticed is that the Proof barrel I have gets dirty significantly quicker than other match barrels I have and to takes longer to clean. It is possible that this could be a result of the throat surface and not the barrel itself but it is my expectation that it just wasn’t lapped quite as thoroughly as others. Consistent with this hypothesis, I noticed some break in (easier cleaning and less fouling) than when new after a hundred rounds or so. I don’t usually notice that on a hand lapped match barrel. Proof says this is atypical on their barrels. Given the hands on nature of the lapping process that is entirely plausible.

While I am not sold on carbon wrapped barrels as an all-around upgrade for everyone, I do think that they are the clear solution for lightweight hunting rifles.  They give you the accuracy of a much heavier steel barrel, with cost, about an extra $500, being the only downside. In the case of my rifle, the Proof barrel weighed in at about 3.2 lbs with an equivalent contour steel barrel at over 4.8 lbs. That 1.6 lbs weight savings was the largest for any single lightweight component by a large margin. Lastly, Proof feels the need to call standard barrel contours by the wrong names for what I can only imagine are indecipherable and indefensibly confusing reasons that I am sure led many to find their barrel does not fit their stock. A Proof Sendero, for instance, is bigger than everybody else’s Sendero. It is my understanding, though I did not double check this, that their light Sendero is actually a Sendero contour. Fortunately for me, the fine folks at McMillan were aware of the issue and saved me the headache of a size mismatch.

Ammo Background

I have been hearing for awhile that through changes in the automated loading equipment available, as well as changes to importing arrangements, much better loaded ammo is now available and for more reasonable prices. While I certainly expect that ammo, like most things that are manufactured (and, unlike say pharmaceuticals, subject to actual free market pressures), will get both better and more affordable, ammo has some unique issues to overcome regarding the ‘getting better’ part. The issues stem not from making ammo more uniform, but rather from its fit to any particular rifle. Much of accuracy derives not from the uniformity of the ammo but from its fit to the rifle. This is why some competitive .22lr shooters go to all the work of sending their rifle to a testing facility and then buying an entire lifetime worth of ammo in one purchase. Lot testing is a roundabout way of getting to what handloaders do for centerfire with load development. A handloader often starts with a brass and bullet he intends to use and varies the powder, charge, seating depth, and neck tension to find a combination that fits the rifle best. The theory of why this matters so much has to do with how a barrel vibrates, creating nodes and internodal spaces, as well as with how the bullet exits the case and enters the lands. Basically, you want it to enter the lands straight and exit the barrel at a node. This can all be even further complicated if you shoot long range and therefore need the standard deviation on the velocity to be low, want a high velocity, and might even be tempted to try those devilishly picky VLD bullet oglives that result in lower drag but also make you pull your hair out. This all makes the manufacture of precision loaded ammunition much trickier than just putting some high tolerance components together carefully, within SAAMI standards, and shipping it. Some combinations have a good fit in more rifles than others but you need to do a lot of different testing to find this out and, in the end, your results will still be varied. I am saying all this because the data you are about to partake of is affected by all of these things. Being the best in one rifle does not mean the best in all rifles and being the best on average for all rifles might not mean the best for yours. This is an interesting test nevertheless for giving you an idea of the sort of results you might expect using a variety of excellent factory loaded ammo in an excellent custom precision rifle.

Accuracy Testing

Testing of the rifle took place on a couple hot and sultry summer days that proved to have almost non-existent wind. Because of the heat I only did 10 rounds between barrel cooling breaks and, following the opening up of the last FGGM group, I decided to clean every 20 rounds. That accuracy drop, as well as the number of patches per cleaning, suggest that this barrel fouls quicker than previous barrels I have had. This could also perhaps be the 6.5CM caliber as this is my first 6.5CM, though I doubt that plays any role. Some of the testing was done from cement benches and some from steel benches as a couple different ranges were used. A Magnetospeed Chrono was used on some days and an Oehler 35P on others. All groups were fired using a Sightron SIIISS624x50LRFFP/MH (that will be reviewed later this year) mounted in a Bobro dual lever precision optic mount. (link review).  I used a Bulls Bag front bag and a rear bag of my own making. Magnification, rests, and non-free recoiling position considered, I think it would be fair to say that my hold was worse than .25″ more than it was better in this configuration.

The biggest challenge related to accuracy testing for the MESA Crux in 6.5CM is what you might call the caliber to weight ratio. The Crux is a very lightweight hunting rifle. The model can be made as light as 6.1 lbs and the particular configuration I assembled, with a little longer and larger contour barrel, adjustable stock, rail, and DBM is still only 7.38 lbs. That light weight, coupled with the moderately powerful 6.5 CM cartridge results in significant movement of the rifle during firing as the rifle is pushed back into the shooter before the bullet has left the barrel. This is always the case but is more pronounced the lighter the rifle and more powerful the cartridge.

Given the limitations of factory ammo, non free-recoil position, and a very lightweight rifle, I was pretty apprehensive going in to the testing. I was quite pleased when the rifle proved to be .5″ with one of the ammunitions tested and consider this to be an excellent result.

Federal

My brother and I have had a long standing argument about Federal Gold Medal Match ammo. His position was that it is excellent and he uses it as his regular fodder for his rifle, which was actually designed for the round. My position was that Federal, though once the only game in town for quality factory ammo, was probably not the leader anymore and middle of the pack for premium ammo at best. I had my doubts about it averaging .5″ @ 100 yds as I had fired FGGM ammo in a lot of different rifles over the years and never seen it do that. Now I have to eat my words and I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, things shooting well is great; on the other, my brother should never be right.

Shooting the FGGM in the MESA Crux, I could see that it was just hammering right away. Because of this, I got a little too aggressive with my holds and actually ended up adding .2″ to the third group I shot. That group was also sub .5″ out of the rifle I just changed where it was pointing in a failed, tail chasing, attempt to tighten things up even more. I corrected my poor behavior to spit out another clean group for the third group. I think the fourth group opened up due to a dirty bore, though this is conjecture. With only had about 60 rounds down the barrel at the time, of which most were at long range steel, I was not accustomed to how quickly it fouled. In any case, I didn’t run it to 25 rounds between cleanings after that.

It is also notable that, in addition to being a sub .5″ ammo out of the Crux, the SD of the FGGM was also only 13 fps. While that is not single digit, it is pretty darn close. Really, sub .5″ @ 100yds with an SD of 13 fps is what you might expect to be entering a serious competition with. In a lightweight hunting rifle with off-the-shelf factory ammo, it is quite impressive.

Desert Tech

Desert Tech is probably better known for their rifles, which are totally unique designs that are unusual both in their focus on bull pup configurations and in their easy caliber convertibility. The rifles are quite innovative and have a very good reputation. The ammo has likewise been gaining an excellent reputation, particularly in the 6.5CM caliber which has a .5MOA guarantee out of the Desert Tech rifles. Frank, as well as a variety of other reviewers have also seen those sub .5MOA results.

This is probably a good time to mention again the importance of ammo and rifle fit. In this case we have an ammo with a .5 MOA guarantee that has done so for a variety of folks whom I trust. We also have a rifle that has done .5 MOA with the Federal ammo I tested and wasn’t really far from that with the Hornady either. Together though, it is not good. This ammo is just a bad fit for this particular rifle and that did not change with or without compensator or with or without Magnetospeed. Ammo to rifle fit is just a huge factor to the performance of you overall shooting system and is independent of the quality of the rifle or ammo. If you want good performance with factory ammo in your rifle, you are going to need to test a variety of quality ammo. If you want good performance with handloads you are going to need to spend time developing a load, preferably with your reloading equipment at the range. Fit is important.

Copper Creek

Copper Creek Ammo is a relatively small scale U.S. maker that offers both standard loaded ammo and a unique two-stage load development option that sort of approximates the handloading procedure by varying first powder charge and then seating depth. In the procedure, you fire one group with each of five charges, pick the best, measure your chamber with the Hornady OAL gauge, and have them send you a second set of loads. These next five loads each have the charge you chose but with a different depth of seating. I was intrigued by this as it attempts to overcome the biggest challenge that factory ammo has, namely, the aspect of fit to the rifle. Since it has been my experience that something always goes at least a little wrong, I had them send me ten instead of five of each charge weight: . basically, a double load development pack.

The Copper Creek load development pack did not feel quite as enlightening in this 6.5CM as it had in the .223. This may have something to do with 6.5CM, with it’s long neck and short fat case, being less finicky than .223. Though the green velocity proved the best, it was not a whole lot better than some of the others or, really, that great itself. The difference between the best averaging load and the worst was less than .1″ and all loads were just over .75″ on average. My inclination, should I be handloading and get this data, would be to change bullets or powder since this combination just seems to be chasing its tail around. Because Copper Creek has the same sort of huge variety of options that you have when handloading, I would do the same with them. Copper Creek can make a load development pack with any projectile made so you are not limited in your bullet selection.

Speaking of options and removing limitations, Copper Creek gives you a lot of options as they can simply make ammo for you to your own already tested load specifications. They also keep the load data for any ammo you’ve developed with them on file permanently and will give you the load recipe after you have purchased only 100 rounds of loaded ammo. This is a pretty astounding degree of customizability.

Hornady

Hornady has been making a big push lately into long range precision shooting with their 6.5CM cartridge and the support they offered it at launch by providing high quality, affordable, loaded ammo for it. There has been a bit of rumbling on the street that they have loosened up a little on the QC with these loads, though, and that, while still good, they are not as good as they were. Hornady has also done a lot of work on polymer tipped bullets, overcoming the intrinsic accuracy challenges in order to realize aerodynamic advantages. The Hornaday ammo behaved very differently on the two days in which it was shot. The first day, at 96 degrees, and with the Magnetospeed, it shot a very loose group exceeding 1″. The next day, at 85 degrees with no Magnetospeed it shot much better. It went sub .5″ on one group, had another that was sub .2 until it got a flier and had nothing even close to .75″. Basically, it felt like a different ammo altogether. Since the velocities looked very close, my thought is that the slight change in harmonics from the Magnetospeed was not good for it. I have not seen this effect myself with other ammo or rifles, but others have said that a Magnetospeed tightened or loosened their groups to a noticeable degree. With a mean group mean of .250″ (actually a little under the Federal’s .252″,) I would not be terribly surprised if I could go sub .5″ on average with this Hornady if I had another box, preferably from the same lot, and did all rounds without the Magnetospeed.

The Shooting Experience

I already mentioned that I was concerned that the light weight might lead to problems in the accuracy testing. In an effort to mitigate this, I actually added a strap-on shoulder pad for the second and third days of testing to minimize the bounce due to the movement my pulse generated on such a light rifle. I was a bit concerned about felt recoil as well and picked up a compensator to try out. In the end, I tried the rifle with and without compensator as well as with and without the strap-on shoulder pad I brought along to help with pulse bounce. I needn’t have been worried:  the McMillan composite stock and decelerator pad combined to take the bite out of the only moderately powerful 6.5CM cartridge. The compensator was nice for some of the testing where I was shooting all day long but would be of more use to a hunter in protecting the crown than in taming the recoil.

Shooting steel at distance, the 6.5CM showed its advantage. It is noticeably better than a .308 at that range and had no trouble reliably dropping shots on target out to the 1k yard maximum range I have at my disposal. I was very on the fence about doing a 6.5CM. In fact, I am actually still on the fence about it. An ~1.5k round barrel life may be considered moderate, but for a guy who shoots mostly .22lr and .223rem, it looks pretty short. I went back and forth a long time between the longer lived, heavier hitting up close, .308 and the better long distance 6.5CM ballistics. In the end, I decided it might be fun to try to blow up groundhogs from the next hill over. I can always make the opposite choice next barrel since the bolt head is the same. Caliber may originate from the Greek name for a shoemaker’s last, but it always feels like it should have come from something that meant compromise.

Summary

John and Chad at Mesa Precision Arms have a lot going for them as they enter the increasingly competitive rifle making industry. Their military service credentials, previous work experience, hunting and competitive credentials, and industry connections are all first rate. They are on point with a variety of industry trends I have noticed, from the components they use to the shape of their supply chain. Much of their marketing also strikes me as cutting edge. Their Facebook and Instagram accounts are regularly updated and the quality of the photography in their posts is professional level. They are really worth “friending” or “following” just for the photos even if you aren’t looking for a rifle. Most important to their success, though, the rifles perform well. The price of the Crux rifle as tested is $4,799. When comparing this to six other custom shops, whose quality I also have faith in, Mesa Precision’s price came out exactly in the middle.

I was worried going into this review that it would be difficult to get the sort of performance I expected from the rifle. This was a combination of not knowing the MESA guys very well, the extreme light weight of the rifle, and the plan to focus on factory ammo performance. I would have been even more worried had I known a few of the ammo makers that were originally lined up were not going to be able to come through leaving only four factory loads. Despite all these factors, the Mesa Precision Arms rifle shot its desired .5″ @ 100yds pretty quickly with the FGGM 140gr and went on to show some pretty good potential with the Hornaday as well. I am quite pleased with the performance of the rifle.

On the other side of that light weight, the 7.39 lbs of the Crux in the configuration I received (it can go as low as 6.1 lbs) was a dream to carry. The carbon barrel, carbon stock, and titanium action alone saved roughly 3 lbs over the parts conventionally used, any you feel this savings strongly.

Probably the most unique aspect of Mesa Precision is its focus on the long range hunting market. Like most makers, MESA can build whatever you want: from a lightweight hunting rifle to a variety of discipline specific rifles. For most makers, though, the hunting rifle is the afterthought and usually looks more like a stripped down model than a premium one. Mesa is really focused on making their long range hunting rifles premium from the Proof carbon barrels to the McMillan carbon stocks to the Trigger Tech triggers. Even the packaging, in a Pelican iM3300 case with perfectly custom cut foam, is premium. Mesa’s take on the hunting rifle goes further than just premium though. There are lots of premium European hunting rifles. What Mesa makes has a distinctly American flavor in features certainly, and usually in the country of origin of the parts as well. The highly compatible 700 clone platform, M5 / AICS mag option, high tech stock and barrel, rail optics mounting option, calibers commonly chosen, and focus on long range performance are very American. I have not seen other makers focused on what a premium American hunting rifle should be, and that is very much what the Crux is.

For a limited time, readers of SnipersHide will receive 5% off Mesa Precision Arms products with coupon code #snipershide

The post Mesa Precision Arms Crux Custom Rifle and Titanium action review appeared first on Snipers Hide.