Remington "vtr"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maverick223:

Wow! You're right! That'd be a strange bullet shape, huh? :D

Geno
 
The VTR was an effort from Remington to do 'something different' that might generate much needed profit at minimal cost, it has for the most part done this, but the fad has dissipated it seems.

The VTR's have steadily came down in pricing from most of the distributors.

As for the VTR being any more accurate than its round barrel cousin...not!

To date, I have had the honor of mounting and sighting in nearly 100 of these VTR's for customers, and NONE of the VTR's have been stellar in the accuracy department, not bad accuracy, but not anything Remington would have you believe, due to the triangle shaped barrel!

On a happier note, the 'balance' of the VTR is spot on! The accuracy is descent enough and the prices are descending for now, so if you fancy one, get it!
 
when is remington going to learn that its not the odd and different that we as consumers want? id rather pay 700.00 or 800.00 and get a highly accurate rem 700 out of the box than a crazy looking barreled rifle. but that just me.

all aside, i wonder how it would perform with a hs stock?
 
Contrary to popular belief, the 'stocks' of most production rifles, especially the synthetic units are not the downfall of the rifles accuracy.

The cost cutting measures employed by many of the mainline firearm production companies are the reason accuracy evades us today.

Most of the production firearm companies, decisive, upper echelon, are young in comparison to the decision makers of the days when 'less than an inch at 100y' was the norm, or the maximum allowed spread a rifle could be expected to yield.

The mindset today, within the management of these companies, is centered on profit, not exceptional accuracy, and by all rights, this is what the general shooting public is reflecting to the manufacturers, it is not so much the accuracy that is important to the majority of today's shooters/hunters, but cost of the particular rifle....and whatever it produces as far as group size is OK by them, shucks most of these same folks don't know if a 3'' group at 100y is good or bad!

The same can be said concerning the 'quality', or looks of said firearms, these firearms may look horrendous by yesterdays standards, but is fine and dandy by today's standards as long as the price is not 'up there'. And the manufacturers are certainly taking advantage of this!

We should all be happy that one of the 'big boys' in the production world has not figured out how to make a polymer rifle! hehehehe
 
Well the goon at the counter is dead wrong...about everything. The barrel has a lower moment of inertia, and therefore has less stiffness than either a bull barrel of a fluted barrel.
Click to expand...
Not the case if you are comparing barrels of the same weight, though. For a given weight and caliber, a triangular barrel should be stiffer than a cylindrical barrel.
It has less surface area (again than both bull barrel and fluted barrel, but probably a sporter barrel as well).
Click to expand...
Again, not true if you're comparing it to a cylindrical barrel of the same weight.

OTOH fluted barrels can be stiffer than an equally sized bull barrel due to the reduced weight at the muzzle, but the major advantage is the and greater strength to weight ratio, something that no bull barrel can come close to matching. It also has a greater convection heat transfer coefficient (meaning that it cools faster) with equal capacitance (the ability to retain more heat at a lesser overall temperature) to a bull barrel of equal weight, which allows you to shoot longer with less deviation from the POA.
Click to expand...
All true. But it seems to me that the triangular barrel splits the difference between a full-on fluted barrel and a cylindrical barrel of the same weight.

I'm not saying a fluted barrel isn't better than a triangular profile, only that a triangular profile is probably slightly better than a cylindrical profile of the same weight.
 
Not the case if you are comparing barrels of the same weight, though. For a given weight and caliber, a triangular barrel should be stiffer than a cylindrical barrel.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that to be the case because some material was removed in the Y-axis (where is is most needed for strength), though I am not willing to do the calculations to prove my point (nor do I have the specs at my disposal to do so). Perhaps 1858 will come along and run a 3D simulation to test our opposing theories.

Again, not true if you're comparing it to a cylindrical barrel of the same weight.
Click to expand...
Again, I believe you are wrong, but again, I am not positive and I am unwilling to do the math to prove my point.

:)
 
Whewwww....

Either way, the triangle barrel monster known by all as the VTR isn't any more, or less for that fact, accurate than the old cylindrical barreled rifles!

I wonder if all this 'Play Station' and X-Box made an impression on Remingtons engineers!?!

An idea stolen from several Swedish aviation military cannons.

Looks cool though!
 
Are its angels all radar prof. Is it truly a stealthy rifle. If so I WANT 1!!
 
Are its angels all radar prof. Is it truly a stealthy rifle. If so I WANT 1!!
Click to expand...

You know.....you may have an important point there.

You know how those pesky game wardens are using the utmost in cutting edge technology to bag violators! hehehe

Remington must be thinking along this rout as they have yet again introduced 'something different' and stealthy with their new introduction..... the SPS Tactical AAC-SD!

Proving it doesn't have to shoot as accurately as the 'old' rifles....just be 'different'!
 
Well there is the cool factor. One gent mentioned triangular shaped bullets being the point at which he would buy one. Since your bullets are fluted when they come out of your barrel we are assuming you have a fluted barrel, correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top