Fluted heavy barrel- question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Offhand, Gale McMillan was one of the best barrel makers in the USA. His button rifled 22 caliber smallbore rimfire barrels may well have been the best ever. They still hold virtually all of the NRA's 100 yard prone records shot back in the 1970's that still stand, but the better ammo available then helps somewhat. I don't think any 22 long rifle barrel made these days has equaled them; a few are close. Neither does the ammo these days in my opinion.

McMillan centerfire barrels in 22 and 24 caliber were also great, but his 30 caliber ones never quite produced the high power rifle scores as Hart button rifled barrels did. But then when Hart's best barrel smith, Al Houser, retired in the mid 80's, Kreiger's cut rifled barrels took the lead for the 30's. A couple of other cut rifled ones are now the equal of Kreigers.

Gale McMillan loved the Remington actions. They were cheap and available from Remington. Easy to true up and the ones fitted with his 22 caliber barrels did well in the benchrest game. When 30 caliber barrels were put in them for high power matches, they fell short. Not surprising as the Remmie's are about 1/3rd as stiff as Winchester 70 ones. He refused to believe that a Win receiver would bend about 1/3rd less in the vertical axis for a given barrel fitted to it; in spite of mechanical engineers' calculations proving otherwise as well as people who physically measured them comparing them to other receivers. Nor would he believe the round Rem's twisted loose in epoxy bedding as proved by stock fitters having to rebed them every few hundred shots; the Win's action's flat surfaces kept them bedded consistently. Nor did he want to discuss why benchresters finally glued round Remington receivers in flat surfaced sleeves to keep them from twisting with 22 and 24 caliber barrels.

McMillan's fiberglass stocks are second to none.
 
Last edited:
Mr Bart B, Thank you for making such an effort to explain and educate me. You went to so much trouble, in fact, that I feel almost guilty for having suckered you in. But, whenever someone mentions Gale McMillan the "barrel Maker", as did an earlier poster on this thread, I can't resist inviting him to demonstrate the full scope of his ignorance. You see, the fine McMillan barrels you are confused about were made not my Gale, but by his brother Pat. Whom I knew quite well, as well as Gale and "Mac" the third brother. Pat's barrels were indeed quite good and I had good success with them back in early '70's when they were prominent in benchrest circles. As you suggest, Gales fiberglass stocks were outstanding and he certainly deserves recognition as one of the pioneers in the field. On another matter; you will do well to learn more about sleeved actions and their use, and perhaps resolve some of your other confusions.
Have a nice weekend, I'm off to a rifle tournament.
Offfhand
 
Offfhand, you're right. I sit corrected on the barrel maker. Pat made those excellent barrels. Never met Pat; only Gale on several occasions at their Phoenix shop and the Nationals.

But I stand by my comments on Rem vs. Win box magazine actions. Mid Tompkins laughed when I mentioned to him that Gale thought the Rem actions were the best box magazine ones around. Didn't matter that their track record out shined all the others. Even when military teams and others tried to fix their twisting problems in epoxy with 1" thick recoil lugs; they still failed. Sleeved ones were much better.

My opinion. That's all.
 
Sorry Bart B., but we are going to have to agree to disagree on a few things. I also disagree with your take on the .308 .vs .30-06, and am firmly in Mark Humphreville's and German Salazar's camp in that matter. And while Gale McMillan made a good barrel, I also disagree with some of the things he espoused such as the value of barrel break-in.

Don
 
Fine by me.

But it wasn't the scores shot by .30-06 match rifles that made the NRA High Power Committee make scoring rings smaller.
 
And it wasn't because the .30-06 couldn't compete with the .308 that it was dropped from Palma. The last 2 years in which it was allowed, Mark took the Palma Individual Trophy with the .30-06.;)

Don
 
I know about the NRA rules for the US Palma Rifle. I wrote the first one for the NRA HP Committee in the early 80's stating in so many words; any rifle with metallic sights chambered for the .308 Win/7.62 NATO or .30-06 cartridge. Those two rounds were stipulated so people whose only match rifle was chambered for the .30-06 or it was a Garand in .30-06. But the NRA decided several years later to limit the cartridge to the .308/7.62 round as that was the standard for all other country’s members on the International Palma Committee; members were mostly from the British Empire and South Africa. And the US NRA High Power Committee wanted to get people better qualified wind doping the .308's greater wind drift values than the .30-06 had. The US NRA wanted another “Win” in the international long range game. Then the .223/5.56 was later added as a viable round for Palma matches in the USA.

When allowed in a match, the .30-06 can always compete with the .308. It’s the results after the last round’s fired that shows the difference; time and time again. Didn’t matter that the .308 Win chambered rifles shot in matches starting in the summer of 1963:

* shot smaller test groups than the .30-06 in Sierra Bullets’ test range; only a little smaller than the .300 Savage did.

* broke all the high power records held by the .30-06 by the late ‘60's or early ‘70's.

* produced too many unbreakable ties in its first three years of use and the NRA reduced short and mid range target scoring rings sizes in 1966. In the early 70's, the long range target’s rings were reduced in size, but the .308 was helped in that issue with a few magnums along the way.

* shot smaller many-shot test groups by 30 to 50 percent from rifles clamped in free recoiling return to battery machine rests with no holding variables influencing them by humans. 100 through 1000 yard test groups with it were quite smaller than with the .30-06.

* won an increasing percentage of matches from 1963 to the late 80's finally giving way to the 6.5x.308 as a favorite when good quality 26 caliber bullets were finally available.

* were preferred by 99%+ of the top ranked shooters because the odds of winning were best when the .308 was used.

Of course the .30-06 can still win matches. Lones Wigger did shooting the last Olympic 300 meter free rifle match in 1976. Exactly like the rifle that shot that .0077" five-shot group for a national benchrest record. All its owner’s other groups with it were larger. He also has only one group that’s the largest ever fired with it. The scores German Salazar stated in his article are a small fraction of what others noticed using both cartridges. The other 99.9%+ of them doing better with the .308 at all ranges are what counts the most. As were Humpy’s Palma wins; two out of dozens.

Smart people will pick the system whose odds are most favorable for doing the best job. Not one that only does it 2% or less of the time. They’ll do better using the one that’s best over 98% of the time. Yet some still pick one or a few instances of the .30-06 performing better than the .308 to justify their position; the many, many others showing its lesser performances are not mentioned as they don't support their position.
 
Bart,

The problem with your comparison of the .308 .vs .30-06 in regards to accuracy in the 60's, when the .308 came into it's own, is the comparison to what the .30-06 had become, not what it could be. The .30-06 case was originally designed for a much longer and heavier bullet than the 152 - 174gr bullets that it ended up with. It would be much like making the .308 use 120gr bullets and putting it up against the 30BR. The 30BR with it's efficiency would clean the .308's clock. By moving to heavier bullets and slow burning powders with the .30-06, you change the paradigm. With the right bullet and powder, the .30-06 can be made to be more comparable to the .300WM than to the .308, using it's large case capacity to create 200fps more velocity than the .308 can with heavy, high BC bullets. In fact, my 190SMK .30-06 match load duplicates Federal's .300WM 190SMK Gold Medal Match load at 2900fps. At 1,000 yards, while the .308 is wheezing, a properly loaded .30-06 has room to spare. 15 years ago, myself and another guy (MontanaMarine) on SniperHide.com did extensive load development work with the .30-06 based around the 190SMK bullet. While we worked independently, we both arrived at the same place; 2900fps with great accuracy. A few years later, German Salazar had the same idea of making use of the .30-06's large case capacity to drive heavy bullets at high velocity, and again, working independently, he came to the same conclusion. So, to summarize, if you load the .30-06 to .308 levels, the .308 via it's efficiency will come out on top the majority of the time. But, change the .30-06 to a loading that takes advantage of it's large case capacity, and it's a whole 'nuther ballgame. Oh, and the BTW, I shoot a .308 as well as a .30-06, so I am not dead set against the .308.

Don
 
In fact, my 190SMK .30-06 match load duplicates Federal's .300WM 190SMK Gold Medal Match load at 2900fps. At 1,000 yards, while the .308 is wheezing, a properly loaded .30-06 has room to spare.
OK, you're right. That load's probably hotter than proof loads. I don't go there; that's not "properly loaded" in my book. SAAMI's .30-06 specs at 60K psi max average for 180's is 2690 fps and 200's at 2540 fps. from 24" test barrels. At those pressures, a 190 will leave about 2715 fps. I don't know how long your barrel is/was. Did you measure pressure or just UWAG it? A .308 can also be loaded to shoot bullets that fast; for a few rounds, anyway. And I don't know what you mean by "great accuracy." To me that's under 6 inches at 1000 for at least 20 shots.

Another strike against the .30-06 is it has more recoil during barrel time for a given weight bullet at SAAMI max pressure than the .308 does with the same bullet and max pressure with rifles of the same weight. That alone makes the .30-06 harder to shoot accurately off ones shoulder; even if both test equally accurate tested in free recoil. The bore axis moves more off the direction it pointed at when the primer fired.

Humphreville's .30-06 load was actually a bit on the weak side, if that matters. Close to what a .308 will shoot 190's with max loads.
 
Last edited:
Ok, it's time for you guys to start a new thread. It was fun for a little while but now it's over with.
 
OK, you're right. That load's probably hotter than proof loads. I don't go there; that's not "properly loaded" in my book. SAAMI's .30-06 specs at 60K psi max average for 180's is 2690 fps and 200's at 2540 fps. from 24" test barrels. At those pressures, a 190 will leave about 2715 fps. I don't know how long your barrel is/was. Did you measure pressure or just UWAG it?

Actually, Quick Load software says the pressure is 59k psi, which I have no reason to doubt. I will say though, that this performance (to the best of my knowledge) can only be accomplished with one powder; RL22, which wasn't around in the 60's. Lyman's 49th Edition lists a 60.5gr load, and I get 2900fps at 60.7gr, so 0.2gr more powder from a published load isn't going to put me anywhere's near "proof loads". I initially tried H4831SC, but could only get about 2775fps with it while remaining within pressure specs. My barrel? It's a 26" Krieger MTU contour barrel with a 1.5 degree leade. As for quoting expected velocities, that's a fool's errand. For example: I have a Winchester Match rifle, straight from the factory with a 26" barrel also. With a 178gr Amax load that I developed, the Krieger barreled rifle gets 2950fps, while the Winchester Match rifle only gets 2875fps, with the very same load.

A .308 can also be loaded to shoot bullets that fast; for a few rounds, anyway.

I also did extensive load development work with the .308 using 190SMK bullets. The best I could do while staying within pressure specs was 2690fps using 47.0gr of N550 powder. No, the .308 is much better suited to 170 - 178gr bullets in the 2750fps range, as I found out with my 26" barreled FN SPR. You see, this is the problem when load development stops on a particular cartridge, and a new one comes along with new load development utilizing new technologies, new machinery, and new ideas. FWIW, I did the same thing with that outdated, 124 year old 6.5x55 cartridge. I did extensive load development work with it, and got 2900+fps loads with 139 - 142gr bullets out of my 28" Obermeyer barrel utilizing powders that were not around years ago. I ended up using the 6.5x55 in 1,000 yard competition, not because it was any more accurate than my .308 or .30-06, but because it only used 25.5 MOA of up from a 100 yard zero, as opposed to the 30+ MOA that the .308 and .30-06 uses. Like most guys, I will do ANYTHING to cut down drift. Oh, and it recoiled less.;)

Don
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top