Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hammer Bullets Pic
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MudRunner2005" data-source="post: 1180728" data-attributes="member: 12995"><p>Steve, thanks for all your insight. I'm not talking about your company, so please don't take it that way, I'm talking about bullet manufacturers in general. I'm also not necessarily talking about a heavy .25 cal that will work in a 10" twist, I get that physics will not allow that to happen.</p><p> </p><p>I'm stating that with all the other new long range high BC and heavy non-standard twist required bullets being made, that it seems like they are purposely forgetting the .25 and 8mm calibers, because they aren't as popular as others have recently become. I mean, the .243 has them up to 115 grains (requires a 1:7 twist), the .264 has them up to 165 now (but they have recently pretty much standardized the 1:8 twist)....Why not the .257? There's no way a standard .243 barrel is going to properly spin those big 115's...So you will need an aftermarket barrel. But they still make them. Berger makes a 7mm 195 that requires a minimum of 8.5" twist...Preferably a 1:8"...Once again, non-standard twist. Berger also makes a .27 cal 170 (requires non-standard 1:8). Very few factory barrels come with anything fast enough to handle these modern bullets in just about every caliber. So, to me, the excuse of a non-standard twist, is just that.</p><p> </p><p>I guess what I'm really asking, is why everybody seems to have sluffed off the .25 and 8mm, when every single other caliber available has been done, despite the non-standard twist availability?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MudRunner2005, post: 1180728, member: 12995"] Steve, thanks for all your insight. I'm not talking about your company, so please don't take it that way, I'm talking about bullet manufacturers in general. I'm also not necessarily talking about a heavy .25 cal that will work in a 10" twist, I get that physics will not allow that to happen. I'm stating that with all the other new long range high BC and heavy non-standard twist required bullets being made, that it seems like they are purposely forgetting the .25 and 8mm calibers, because they aren't as popular as others have recently become. I mean, the .243 has them up to 115 grains (requires a 1:7 twist), the .264 has them up to 165 now (but they have recently pretty much standardized the 1:8 twist)....Why not the .257? There's no way a standard .243 barrel is going to properly spin those big 115's...So you will need an aftermarket barrel. But they still make them. Berger makes a 7mm 195 that requires a minimum of 8.5" twist...Preferably a 1:8"...Once again, non-standard twist. Berger also makes a .27 cal 170 (requires non-standard 1:8). Very few factory barrels come with anything fast enough to handle these modern bullets in just about every caliber. So, to me, the excuse of a non-standard twist, is just that. I guess what I'm really asking, is why everybody seems to have sluffed off the .25 and 8mm, when every single other caliber available has been done, despite the non-standard twist availability? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hammer Bullets Pic
Top