New rifle - AI AXMC in 6.5x47mm Lapua

Nature Boy said:

If you’re sure then I believe you. Does the buttstock on the AXMC have a bag rider?

Click to expand...

@Nature Boy, I'm never sure but I've been consistently close to single digit ES values for the better loads. If I take the average velocity of 2,825 fps +/- 10 fps and put those extremes into a ballistics app, the difference in elevation at 300 yards is only 0.22". The target above shows a vertical error of 1.57" which completely dwarfs the .22" due to reasonable velocity variations. That suggests that I was the problem. Here's a photo of the butt of the AXMC stock. The thumb hook attaches to a Picatinny rail.

Nature Boy said:

That looks removable. I’d bet money they have a bag rider attachment

Click to expand...

It attaches via Picatinny rail so if there's a bag rider (whatever that is) that uses the same interface I could try one.

I ordered one of these this afternoon.

https://www.amazon.com/Protektor-Mo...rotektor+bags&qid=1560909810&s=gateway&sr=8-4

If I'm still struggling I'll dig deeper into the idea of a rear bag rider for load development and testing.

Trigger update: The lead gunsmith at Mile High Shooting Accessories emailed me this morning with the following information. I guess I'm just lucky!

"I have determined that the trigger is faulty. It will get replaced by Accuracy International. This is the first time that I have ever seen this and it's very surprising! I think I have a very short list of things that I have not seen wrong with an AI after working on them for 9 and a half years. You just took another thing off my list. I am sending this to Accuracy International North America overnight tomorrow to have them replace it."

I got the trigger back from MHSA today. They sent it to AI North America who replaced the internals. AINA has no explanation as to how the rifle passed inspection with the trigger that was in it, but in fairness I don't remember the trigger being an issue when I first received the rifle so maybe something broke internally. I guess I'll never know.

Now I can move the AWM trigger back to the .300 Win Mag, reinstall the AXMC trigger, mount some scopes to other AW and AWM rifles using new Spuhr mounts and get back to shooting.

WelshShooter said:

Awesome news. There's nothing worse than buying a new toy and something goes wrong, but credit to AINA for getting it sorted. That's the type of service you expect when you spend that much money on a rifle!

Click to expand...

This trigger issue hasn't phased me one bit but that might be because I have other Accuracy International rifles and was able to move a trigger over to the AXMC. I probably would have been very disappointed if this was my one and only. This is the first problem I've encountered with AI and would buy another ten of them tomorrow if I had enough money to spare. I still consider AI rifles to be the best of the best and would put them up against any other manufacturer out there. I buy them because they're the best, rather than I think they're the best because I own them. That's an important distinction for me.

As for shooting, I need to work up a new load for the AW (6.5 CM) using new Lapua brass rather than crappy Hornady. I also need to work up a .300 Win Mag load for the AWM and confirm the .338 Lapua Mag load in the other AWM. Lots to do.

I moved some things around this morning. I removed the AWM trigger from the AXMC (front), reinstalled the AXCM trigger and centered the scope a little better in the Spuhr mount. The AXMC trigger feels great now. I reinstalled the AWM trigger in the .300 Win Mag (rear), and moved the Premier scope/mount that was on the AW to the AWM. Finally, I installed a new RAZOR HD Gen II in a new 20.6 moa Spuhr mount and got that on the AW (middle). I might need to add a spacer or two to the AW stock since the mount as shown is as far forward as it will go. Adam at MHSA gave me good advice re mount height. He recommended 1.18" high which is better than the AI mount I was using. Spuhr includes an interesting leveling gizmo (wedge) that drops into a ramped slot in the center of the mount to help level the scope. Maybe it works for some scopes but it sure doesn't for the Vortex RAZORs shown. I reverted to my usual method of stacking up feeler gauges between the scope and mount to get everything level.

Additional upgrades planned include the following:

* Another (dedicated) SilencerCo Omega 300 for the AW
* Spuhr mount for the AWM shown to replace the AI mount (maybe)
* Complete modification of three remaining AAC suppressors to work with direct thread or the KEY-MO QD mount (51T/90T AAC system sucks)
* Atlas bipods for both AWMs to replace the Harris bipods
* Tenebraex scope covers for everything
* Angle indicators for everything
* Night vision for a couple (maybe)
* Proof barrels for some (maybe)

Here's a photo of 3/4 of the AI family. The AWM in .338 Lapua Mag is waiting for the NF ATACR scope that should be arriving this month so it couldn't make the photo op. I'm upgrading the steering on my Jeep this afternoon but am planning on getting the new RAZOR zeroed tomorrow. I really haven't shot the .300 Win Mag much so I'm looking forward to starting load development for that one. I have a spare .300 Win Mag Lothar Walther barrel so I'm not worried about shooting the barrel out. I think I'll turn this thread into a general AI thread rather than start another for the AWMs.

Added in edit: Duh … I'll need to zero the scope on the AWM too! I forgot about that one. I think I have some quality factory ammunition to get it close in preparation for load development.

Happy July 4th!!!

WelshShooter said:

Very nice pal, sounds like you had a great fourth of July! What occupation do you do that allows you to have so much disposable income? Not jealous at all

Click to expand...

Thanks … but rather than spend a few hours shooting those AI rifles I spent much of today upgrading the steering gear, hoses and PS pump on my '98 Jeep TJ to the bigger unit found in the '99 Dodge Durango. I was once again reminded that you get what you pay for. Rather than buy a new quality Mopar steering gear for $500+, I bought a remanufactured unit from RockAuto for less than half the cost, and discovered way too late that one of the mounting bolt holes in the steering gear housing was stripped. I don't need the practice but I'm going to have to do this all over again next weekend when the replacement unit gets here!

You asked about disposable income but that's a complicated subject. If something is important to us to the extent that it's a significant goal or objective, we'll often find a way to achieve it. For me, not buying a fancy car or truck is one way to help me meet other goals that are more important. I've had my '98 Jeep TJ for 20 years, and my only other vehicle is a 2002 Ford F250 Lariat 7.3L that I bought from a good friend who bought it new in 2001. Both vehicles are very well maintained and I get a lot of pleasure from them that I wouldn't get from a new vehicle. I could make a $600 car payment each month for something that is depreciating rapidly, or I can drive older vehicles and spend money on other things that are more important to me, so I choose the latter. If I had serious money I would own 10 or more Accuracy International rifles and thousands of acres in Montana on which to shoot them.

I still need to zero the AW and AWM so hopefully will get to that tomorrow.

After a somewhat frustrating day I decided to quit working on the Jeep and zero the scopes on the AW (Vortex RAZOR HD GEN 2) and AWM (Premier Reticles Heritage). I copied @Walkalong with his method of zeroing which is to move the center of the reticle to the bullet hole of the previous shot while making sure that the rifle hasn't moved from the POA. I always bore sight at 100 yards and was 4" off to the right and 1/2" high with the first shot. Two shots later I was happy with the zero and then shot two 10-shot groups using Hornady 140gr ELD Match ammunition. The results are fairly good I think, particularly the second group. OnTarget shows the group on the left to be 0.612 moa and the group on the right to be 0.421 moa. Now I'm ready to work up a load using new SRP Lapua brass and most likely H4350 with Berger 140gr bullets.



Next up was the AWM in .300 Win Mag. It turns out that I don't have any "match" ammo laying around with the exception of 11 rounds of the stuff shown below which I got when I worked at Remington over six years ago.



So after bore sighting at 100 yards I aimed at the middle target, top row and the impact is shown above the right target, top row. I dialed left and up (go figure!?), aimed at the middle target, top row and the second shot was 0.4 mil above my point of aim. I dialed down 0.4 mil and then shot a 9-shot group at the left target, top row. I could tweak the zero a bit but since I'll be working up a load for this rifle I'll leave it where it is for now. As you can imagine, there's a noticeable difference in recoil between the two rifles. I'm really pleased to be shooting the AWM .300 WM again, it's been far too long. All in all a good ending to my day

Walkalong said:

I can't take credit.

Click to expand...

You did mention it in your Impact thread so you get the credit as far as I'm concerned. I have a bunch of front focal mil/mil scopes so typically I'll measure the offset using the reticle and adjust accordingly which works fine. I can see how the 'move the reticle to the bullet hole' is an ideal way to zero a standard duplex reticle that doesn't have any stadia for accurate measuring.

WelshShooter said:

Just like @MCMXI I use a grid target with 1cm x 1cm boxes so at 100m one box is one click. I just count the number of boxes, dial it in, shoot again and most often than not it should be spot on.

Click to expand...

I use a grid target but don't count off the squares if the scope I'm using has a suitable reticle. I use the reticle to measure and make an adjustment that way. Part of the reason is that I have targets with 1" square grids but mil/mil optics. More recently I made a target with 0.1 mil squares to try to get away from the milrad to inch conversion, but I still do it because I think of things in absolutes, and in day to day stuff, the actual size of an object is important, not the angle it subtends at x inches, feet or miles from it. It's simpler to measure with the reticle, and it's good practice for using the reticle in the field to range targets or make corrections for windage and elevation. Now the 'move the reticle to the bullet hole' method makes even more sense for a simple duplex reticle with no reference grid on the target. It's still relevant today, but as optics and targets have become more elaborate there are other ways to achieve the same objective.

Nature Boy said:

That's how I do it. There's nothing to calculate. Put your crosshairs on your point of aim, use your windage and elevation to dial your reticle over to your point of impact, next shot should be a bullseye, all other factors not withstanding

Click to expand...

I find it easier to hold the rifle steady on my point of aim and measure the offset to the bullet hole using the reticle, then dial a correction without trying to hold the rifle steady. This is my typical set up for shooting groups, load development etc., and it's not as stable for dialing without the rifle moving.