Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/12/2001 4:48:26 PM EDT
I've got the itch to get a couple of more items for the inventory. Sound familiar?
I'm soliciting your opinions for the configuration of one of them.
Specifically, the Remington 700 in .308.

What I'm doing is putting together my .223/.308 combinations so I have a semi-auto and a bolt-action in each caliber...
I've got the pre-ban Bushmaster Dissipator set up to be able to use the V-MATCH 24 upper. I'm getting the post-ban lower for the V-MATCH so I can reassemble the Dissipator into its pre-ban configuration, giving me two AR's.
I've got a Remington XP-100R in .223, so, I've got the bolt-action in that caliber covered. Technically, it's a Long Range Pistol; enabling me to carry it concealed! If I had a holster for it, I would, just for effect!

Now, the .308.
This is covered in semi-auto by the L1A1 KLINTON SPORTER. The gun works and fits me fine. No problem here.
What I've now decided is to get a bolt-action .308. A Remington 700 as I'm a Remington fan and collector.

I've studied the sites for both the Civilian and LE versions. Went to the Gun Show last weekend and had a chance to look at both the 700P and the 700LTR.
My real problem in deciding which one to get is the bbl. length. 26" unfluted or 20" fluted.
Definetly the BDL, not the DM version.

Intended use for this firearm is accurate target shooting pleasure and use as the other "running gun" with the Dissipator Carbine.
Urban environment is the prevalent scenario. The gun would double as the game getter of the two if need be, using enhanced power ammo.

I've looked at the LTR pretty hard, thinking a shorter bbl. would fit the urban role better.
Considering this rifle as a companion to an AR15 Carbine, the short bbl. is tempting. But, that longer bbl. at the range would be nice.
The L1A1 has a 21" bbl. already, even though it can't be as accurate as a bolt-action hvy.bbl., it fits the short bbl. catagory.

Also, I'm considering using the Hogue stock with the full bedding block, as it's lighter and a bit thinner, not to mention the rubber is easier to grip in wet weather. (The standard H-S Precision stock would be retained and painted some sort of 'urban camo'; I wouldn't sell it.)

I've got a Leupold Tactical 4.5-14x40 Mil-Dot 1" tube scope for the rifle. It's lighter than the 30mm tube, and the best part is: I own it already, whatta money saver!
I'm looking into using some sort of detachable base/ring setup so I can carry an extra pre-zeroed scope...

Is this setup I've described a worthwhile project for a 1-2 punch in .223 and .308?
A lighter, shorter "city hunter"?

So, here we have the decision to get the 20 or 26" bbl.
What advantage/disadvantage is there to either one, given the intended role?
Any experience with the Hogue stock?
Recommendations on a mounting system for the scope?

Your opinions, please.
Thanks.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:09:02 PM EDT
BM007...If you're gonna swap the stock anyway, why not get a VS and spend the money you save on a better trigger like a Shilen and some ammo?
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:26:13 PM EDT
Why not go with a 700VS topped with a Leupold 3.5-10x40 VARI-X-III LR M1



GIB

Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:28:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Arock:
BM007...If you're gonna swap the stock anyway, why not get a VS and spend the money you save on a better trigger like a Shilen and some ammo?



That's a good idea, but...

The 700P is parkerized vs. matte blued; according to the Remington LE site, the "P" stands for "Parkerized", not, "Police".

I'm looking for lighter weight, if that's a good idea, and the Hogue stock is a bit lighter than the either the thinner gripped/less beavertailed VS stock or the big palmswelled/wide beavertailed P.
BTW, PSS stood for "Police Sniper Special".

The real voodoo is the bbl. length.
I'm curious as to what people have experienced re the advantages of shorter vs. longer in bbl. and how this might affect my ultimate decision.
Here's the link to the LE rifle section:

www.remingtonle.com/rifle/700p.htm

Here's the link to the "P" designator:

www.remingtonle.com/home/le_tips.htm

Here's a link to the "PSS" designator:

www.billsguns.com/700_pss_question_&_answers.htm

This might help other Remington enthusiasts.

Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:39:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:07:50 PM EDT
Troy,
That's the type of input I'm looking for.
While attempting to lighten the overall weight and make the gun easier to hang on to, I don't want to give up much in ballistics.
Being a nose heavy gun in the first place, it wouldn't hurt to keep the extra bbl. inches.
I don't want a whippy gun either.
Your points are good ones.
Any time double duty is a desired feature, careful consideration must go into the design.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:20:17 PM EDT
Bus Master-

I understand your desire not to sacrifice too much in ballistics. But do you realize that the difference in velocity between a Rem 700P 26" barrel compared to a 20" barrel is only 50 FPS? Yup, 50 fps. Big deal. The more compact and lighter LTR, IMO, outweighs the 50 fps difference. Here's a pic of my '1-2-3(sig P226)' punch for your viewing pleasure.



Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:34:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 6:37:49 PM EDT by BusMaster007]
jsr75,

Thank you.
A picture is worth a $1,000 and then some!
(no, I'm not going to pay you, I've got an LTR to buy!)

Man, do I love the internet and this Forum.
THAT'S what I needed to see and the specs I was looking for.

It's terrible being the untested novice, but, a guy has to start somewhere.
You're not having any FUN with all that stuff, are you? Sheesh!
Looks to me to be the ingredients for a great day at the range and the serious tools of a serious shooter.
My hat's off to you, jsr75. You're an inspiration.
Problem solved.

Gimme a few months to put my special combination together.
Whew!

...Edited for:
can you come back with some specifics as to your choice in scope, mounts, whether or not the Harris bipod is the S model, shot group size, and anything else you can lay on for the uninformed?
Again, I'm way out of my league here. Damn, that's a nice set.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:44:12 PM EDT

But do you realize that the difference in velocity between a Rem 700P 26" barrel compared to a 20" barrel is only 50 FPS?

HUH?!!!!! WTF have you been smoking?!! A little more than 50 FPS, my man. I'm getting about 150 FPS more from my 700 VS' 26 inch tube than my Savage Model 99F's 22 inch barrel using an identical load of AA 2460 and Sierra 150 grain BTSP. These were fired over a Shooting Chrony Alpha Model on 70 degree days. Even the load manuals will back me up on this with their data and velocity loss model estimate.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:02:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 6:57:49 PM EDT by BusMaster007]
Well, only 50fps did sound a trifle low...

What say anyone else re the bbl. length controversy?

Here's a link to a costly little rifle:
www.snipercentral.com/bravo51.htm
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:20:39 PM EDT
I have the Remington 700 VLS. I have the 26" barrel and have considered cutting it down. I have also considered the Hogue stock, I still have the laminated stock it came with. To tell you the truth, I'm a little afraid to dick with it at all, as right out of the box I was getting one inch groups, or close to, using cheap surplus 7.62x51 NATO ammo, and a Tasco World Class 3-9x mil dot scope ($69.00), while still trying to get the scope setup. I have never come close to these kind of groups before, so I'm kinda excited. I haven't had a chance to shoot my RRA AR15 yet, if may do as well.

I still think that if you are really pushing the range and the gun, a longer barrel is more better. It's a trade off with weight though, decide for yourself.

I have now added a bipod and changed to a Tasco 10-40x Varmint scope, and hope to improve on the above groups with practice. I'm far from a good shot, so if I can shoot this well with it, the true potential must incredible
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:44:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:

But do you realize that the difference in velocity between a Rem 700P 26" barrel compared to a 20" barrel is only 50 FPS?

HUH?!!!!! WTF have you been smoking?!! A little more than 50 FPS, my man. I'm getting about 150 FPS more from my 700 VS' 26 inch tube than my Savage Model 99F's 22 inch barrel using an identical load of AA 2460 and Sierra 150 grain BTSP. These were fired over a Shooting Chrony Alpha Model on 70 degree days. Even the load manuals will back me up on this with their data and velocity loss model estimate.



Jim-

Don't worry, I'm not smoking anything. My info. comes from a LE magazine (can't remember which one) where a Rem 700 PSS in .308 (26" barrel) was cut in 1" increments from 26" down to 16". It was found that loss of velocity was less than 50fps down to 20". However, anything below that resulted in significant decrease. This was using Federal GM if I recall correctly.

Do a search with 'LTR' and I'm sure you'll find another member discussing this very same article. The article may be wrong, however, it seemed to be thorough and credible.

Kind Regards,

-jsr75
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:49:11 PM EDT
Here's the link to what I was talking about. I'm positive that he's talking about the same article I read.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=68916


Originally Posted By Arock:
Earlier this year one of the Law Enforcement magazines did a test on barrel length. They took a .308 chambered rifle with a 26" barrel and chronoed and accuracy tested it. Then they cut sequential 1 inch sections off the barrel length and performed the same tests. They stoppped at 16 inches if memory serves.

What they found is that .308 Winchester is a very length tolerant cartridge. There was no significant loss of muzzle velocity or accuracy until the barrel length was reduced under 20 inches. I remember the loss of MV at 20 inches to be less than 50 ft/sec or almost within the standard deviation at 26 inches.

Ammunition used in the test was one of the Federal Gold Medal Match loads which is also a favorite of LE departments.

From the test results it appears in a rifle chambered for .308 Winchester the 20 inch barrel is virtually as good as the 26 inch.

Maybe that's why Remington choose a 20 inch barrel for the most recent version of the PSS.




Despite the debated velocity differences between the 700P and the LTR I am confident in the LTR's capability AT LEAST out to the 600 yard mark; it's performed splendidly for me so far. But considering BusMaster's urban requirements the LTR fits the bill quite nicely, IMO.


Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:58:58 PM EDT
Jesus H. Christ, a numbers and theory freak. Come back when you've verified some of this data over a chronograph.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:07:44 PM EDT
A bit off topic...

jsr75: what type of shooting mat is that? Where did you get it?

Av.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:21:37 PM EDT
Hey, don't kill the messenger! Don't get your panties in a bunch. I could be very wrong on this. Just simply stating what I read in what I believe to be a credible magazine. And I'm not exactly sure what you consider to be 'numbers and theory' but I feel that cutting a barrel from 26" down to 16" while chronoing each cut is quite the opposite, don't you think? Perhaps you've cut your barrel down as described?

I'll try to compare chrono differences between the LTR and a PSS asap. Currently I own a 700P in 300WM, Steyr SSG PIIK (20"), and my LTR (20"), so chrono comparison in .308 is difficult.

BusMaster, what's your maximum expected engagement range? If within 600 yards, my numbers and theories tell me that 20" will be plenty enough barrel. Just my .02 cents.

AGAIN, I'm not trying to encourage a penis measuring contest here so I, the unknowing idiot who is unworthy to own a Savage, bows down to the all knowing Jim.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:22:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 8:17:43 PM EDT by BusMaster007]

Originally Posted By Troy:
Ballistically, the longer barrel won't make much difference, unlike a .223. However, the longer, heavier barrel results in less recoil and muzzle flip, making it easier to watch your shots impact or to get off a second shot.

What it comes down to is: do you plan to shoot the rifle from the bench/from a rest, or are you planning to carry the rifle around a lot, perhaps taking off-hand shots? For the former, get the PSS; for the latter, the LTR.

-Troy



Hey, this is why the Moderators make the big bucks!
As far as I can see, you're ALL right.
Did you look at the $3,600 rifle link with the compromise 22"bbl.? The guy says he likes 24"bbls. and the company likes 20's. For $3,600, he gets 2" less bbl. than he really wants to buy, and they sell him 2" more than they like to build...go figure. Who won that one?

It's looking like I will need to go the LTR route simply because the rifle needs to be portable. Muzzle jump be damned. It's a hit and run gun.
Were I to simply be static, the heavier stock and longer bbl. would do.
This is why I was asking the questions.
I was trying to find out whether I could compromise with the longer bbl. and still end up shaving weight with the use of the lighter Hogue stock and 1" tube Leupold Tactical scope.
If the ballistics won't be that much different in the "city" distances anticipated for the use of the gun; and the accuracy won't be too much different at the distances the rifle would be used at in the city, say, 100yds. most often, and up to 300yds. sometimes, then, the LTR is probably the better choice.
The gun would look pretty cool with the longer bbl. and the lighter back end. It might be hell to pack around and get on target quickly, though.
Geez, I love you guys.

Edited, because I had the "less and more" mixed up. Maybe less IS more!
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 10:16:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 2:29:06 AM EDT

Hey, don't kill the messenger! Don't get your panties in a bunch. I could be very wrong on this. Just simply stating what I read in what I believe to be a credible magazine. And I'm not exactly sure what you consider to be 'numbers and theory' but I feel that cutting a barrel from 26" down to 16" while chronoing each cut is quite the opposite, don't you think? Perhaps you've cut your barrel down as described?

Yes, the numbers are possible, but there are too many variables to make that a constant situation. If they stuck another barrel on there and did the test all over, there's a good chance that the results of the test would come out different.
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 4:53:38 AM EDT
troynm
"as right out of the box I was getting one inch groups, or close to"

You ain't seen nothing yet, It's been some time since I had mine out, but its best group so far is about, because I'm to lazy to go dig up the info was about .043, 5 shots at 100 yards. Mine is a straight out of the box VLS, 26" barrel.

BusMaster007:My opinion for what its worth, get the 26" barrel, your getting a 308 for long range? right??, so get all the velocity that you can!
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 5:50:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:

Hey, don't kill the messenger! Don't get your panties in a bunch. I could be very wrong on this. Just simply stating what I read in what I believe to be a credible magazine. And I'm not exactly sure what you consider to be 'numbers and theory' but I feel that cutting a barrel from 26" down to 16" while chronoing each cut is quite the opposite, don't you think? Perhaps you've cut your barrel down as described?

Yes, the numbers are possible, but there are too many variables to make that a constant situation. If they stuck another barrel on there and did the test all over, there's a good chance that the results of the test would come out different.



Well, since you brought up variables, which test has more? The same gun, same barrel/chamber being shortened in 1 inch increments, or two different firearms, with two different barrels and chambers and two different lengths? Hell, I have seen two same length barrels in two different brand rifles give 50+ fps differences in velocity. I would go with the first test as being more reliable, and representative of barrel length/velocity correlation.

Now the test I want to see is one where thay start with a 16 incher and ADD one inch at a time!
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 5:59:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jsr75:
Don't worry, I'm not smoking anything. My info. comes from a LE magazine (can't remember which one) where a Rem 700 PSS in .308 (26" barrel) was cut in 1" increments from 26" down to 16". It was found that loss of velocity was less than 50fps down to 20". However, anything below that resulted in significant decrease. This was using Federal GM if I recall correctly.

Do a search with 'LTR' and I'm sure you'll find another member discussing this very same article. The article may be wrong, however, it seemed to be thorough and credible.

Kind Regards,

-jsr75



Would this be the one? www.tacticaloperations.com/SWATbarrel/

I would have to agree with you on this, I have seen this from different sources, and WHEN (its good to be persistant) I have to money to purchase a machine shop I will definately try this on my own.

I personally like the longer barrels better, because I could shoot a heavy rifle better offhand than a lighter rifle, as far as whats more accurate they are like all rifles you get great ones and not so great one with both barrel lenths ( I got a great one in a 26" less than 5/8" at 300yards on many occasions a person I see at the shop quite a bit bought a 20" the same time I got mine, and he can do the same shooting with his).

Link Posted: 12/13/2001 6:38:34 AM EDT
Remingtons are great rifles but why not consider something by Savage? I spent about seven months researching the two and wound up with the Savage. It's clearly the better of the two dollar for dollar. The accuracy in a Savage is similar to the Remington but the trigger in Savage is way....way better. Take a look at Savage Varminter in .308. You'll get a fluted stainless steel 26" barrel, Choate Stock with bipod mounts and a Sharp Shooter trigger adjustable down to less than two pounds. Mine shoots .5" groups with a Simmons 6.5 X 20 44 Mag scope and the whole thing cost me less than $800...including the Harris bi-pod. Price something similar in a Remington and you'll be up around $1200 and still need a trigger job.
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 8:01:59 AM EDT

Well, since you brought up variables, which test has more? The same gun, same barrel/chamber being shortened in 1 inch increments, or two different firearms, with two different barrels and chambers and two different lengths? Hell, I have seen two same length barrels in two different brand rifles give 50+ fps differences in velocity. I would go with the first test as being more reliable, and representative of barrel length/velocity correlation.

Gee, I don't know, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, etc. Those variables. Did I also mention that when chrono'd from my Winchester Models 88 and 100 I received similar results?
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 8:39:50 AM EDT
IMHO, 50 or even 200 fps is not much of a tradeoff for "handiness." The 26" barrel needs carefully chosen handloaded bullet/powder combinations to make a 200 fps difference. I bet Jim Dandy's load is tailored for the long barrel, and of course it doesn't perform as well in the short barrel. But choose a slightly faster powder and tune the load for the short barrel, and the longer barrel probably wouldn't shoot it as well.

For factory loads, the 50 fps difference will be more typical as the .308 has a short, efficient powder column and is loaded for optimum performance out of "standard" 20-22" barrels.

The velocity difference is magnified in less efficient calibers such as the long magnums which need 24 or 26 or even 28 inches to get all of the powder hot.

I'd stick with the 20" if I were you. Just for the sake of handling, barrel stiffness, and weight.

If you REALLY want "handiness" you should pick up my Remington Model 7 Stainless Stalker w/ synthetic stock in .308. It doesn't fit everyone else's idea of a "Tactical Rifle" but it stacks Hornady Custom .308 150 grainers into 3/4" groups and weighs just over 7 lbs. INCLUDING the Leupold 3.5-10x40 Vari-XIII, mounts, rings, and sling!

The pencil barrel won't hold up if you sit at a bench and pound out round after round after round, but for short strings of fire, it's as accurate as many heavier barreled rifles. And the trigger is SWEET! At 7 lbs. you can carry it all day hunting and not get tired.
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 10:12:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2001 7:37:37 PM EDT by BusMaster007]
Hambone:

I thought about getting the Model 7 to fill the .308 niche.
Then I started wondering why there aren't any hvy.bbl. versions of it. And, if putting on a hvy.bbl. would be a good idea, but, that would just jack up the cost, etc., etc.
I started looking at the big 700P, and thought it would only end up being fun off a bench.
The LTR started looking like the kind of compromise I was going for, considering the fact that I'm not going for a World Championship shooting prize; I need an accurate firearm that shoots a common and available caliber (read LE/Military/Hunter) and wouldn't end up as a bench queen. If used in the area at distances I described, the LTR is already the rifle I think I need, without the expense and frustration of gunsmith intervention.

The Model 7 is a great little rifle, but, I've got that XP-100R in .223 that essentially IS a Model 7, with a pistol grip...

jsr75's picture really put it into perspective.
The scope is too big for what I want, though.
Troy's idea for the TASCO Sniper Scope is a great one; I just read as many articles on it as I could find from AR15.com and Snipercountry.com. BUT, I've got the scope already and don't want or need to spend the bucks on another, heavier scope.
This has turned out to be a real good thread for information and ideas.
Re the Savage rifle, AmericanPie, when I first decided to get a rifle and consulted with the "experts" at work, I was really put down because my choice of a Savage 110FP TACTICAL in .308 wasn't good enough for these guys. I thought it was, according to the test done in GUNS&WEAPONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. I was all set to just "get a rifle" and begin to learn how to shoot...which, when looking back, is what I should have done.
I then began the two year oddessy of not having a rifle at all because of the confusion between this action and that kind of feeding and the more I read the more I got confused until one day on a layover I walked into the Big5 and there on the wall was my Remington700AS in 7mmRem.Mag.; all black with sights in a synthetic stock of greenish/grey hue. I held it up and was hooked. I secretly had begun to lean toward the Remingtons because of the Military/LE connection. So, I bought it right there.
When I told the "experts" at work I'd finally gotten my first big rifle, they got snobby because it wasn't their particular choice. Especially the Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 boys. Hmmmph.
The novice mistake I made was listening to them; the expert mistake they made was not encouraging me to get a gun sooner!
I'm happy with the Remington rifle platform and don't need to change brands.
The 700P-LTR in .308 is looking real good at the moment!

Link Posted: 12/13/2001 10:24:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hambone_22345:
IMHO, 50 or even 200 fps is not much of a tradeoff for "handiness." The 26" barrel needs carefully chosen handloaded bullet/powder combinations to make a 200 fps difference. I bet Jim Dandy's load is tailored for the long barrel, and of course it doesn't perform as well in the short barrel. But choose a slightly faster powder and tune the load for the short barrel, and the longer barrel probably wouldn't shoot it as well.

For factory loads, the 50 fps difference will be more typical as the .308 has a short, efficient powder column and is loaded for optimum performance out of "standard" 20-22" barrels.

The velocity difference is magnified in less efficient calibers such as the long magnums which need 24 or 26 or even 28 inches to get all of the powder hot.

I'd stick with the 20" if I were you. Just for the sake of handling, barrel stiffness, and weight.

If you REALLY want "handiness" you should pick up my Remington Model 7 Stainless Stalker w/ synthetic stock in .308. It doesn't fit everyone else's idea of a "Tactical Rifle" but it stacks Hornady Custom .308 150 grainers into 3/4" groups and weighs just over 7 lbs. INCLUDING the Leupold 3.5-10x40 Vari-XIII, mounts, rings, and sling!

The pencil barrel won't hold up if you sit at a bench and pound out round after round after round, but for short strings of fire, it's as accurate as many heavier barreled rifles. And the trigger is SWEET! At 7 lbs. you can carry it all day hunting and not get tired.



I have a Model7SS in a .243, it will shoot about 1/2MOA gets hot after about 8 rounds, but it is a dream to carry in the woods. I am replacing the stock with a Hogue with a full lent bedding block before next deer season, the stock it came with makes alot of makes if you bump it ( hollow ) Definately a sweet little rifle though.
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 10:46:46 AM EDT

IMHO, 50 or even 200 fps is not much of a tradeoff for "handiness." The 26" barrel needs carefully chosen handloaded bullet/powder combinations to make a 200 fps difference. I bet Jim Dandy's load is tailored for the long barrel, and of course it doesn't perform as well in the short barrel. But choose a slightly faster powder and tune the load for the short barrel, and the longer barrel probably wouldn't shoot it as well.

Exactly. Another of the variables. Several years ago, Mike Venturino conducted an experiment similar to the one referenced. In some rifles and with certain loads, there wasn't much difference in velocity from the long tubes and the 22", 20", and 18.5" barrels. With other loads and other conditions changed, like the temperature and barometric pressure, the 26 inch barrel made all of the difference.
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 1:40:27 PM EDT
Hello.
here is my set up for the LTR 308 cal with DM i havent had any trouble out of the DM. with a Leupold 3.5X10 40mm LR Tact M1 Luminous USMC mil-dot / Scope Smith Anti-Reflection Device with Butler Creek flip-up lens covers mounted with Badger Max 50 30mm Rings on a Leupold Mark 4 1-pc. Base , Timney trigger set to 2 3/4 lbs.
Harris bipod turner sling . this rifle shoots very well off hand and the recoil out of the 20 inch barrel isnt bad at all . the rifle weighs 11 lbs loaded my Pss set up the same way weighs in at 14 lbs loaded. it is a very impressive little package.

TargetShooter2


Link Posted: 12/13/2001 9:08:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2001 9:02:14 PM EDT by BusMaster007]
TargetShooter2:

Real nice. Another inspirational view.
Thank you.

I'm learning more and what I've just learned is that 11 & 14 lbs. is a helluva lot to hump around!!!

The LTR comes from Remington around 7.5-8 lbs. naked.
Throughout this discussion, I'm formulating the configuration for my short/light .308 urban bolt-action rifle based on the info and photos graciously given. This is great and what I always wanted from the Forum. Whatta concept, huh?
I think I'm looking to build a portable rifle that works around buildings and cars and whatever the city provides for cover.
Trying to keep the weight down around 10-lbs. or less is going to be the challenge.
Using the Leupold Tactical scope I already have with the 1" tube will help.
The Hogue stock will also be about a pound lighter than the factory H-S.
Without dumping $300 for scope mounting equipment made of ordnance grade steel, what detachable mount system would be recommended that saves weight and money???
The Harris bipod model choice also poses a slight weight problem. Do I go with the fixed BR style or the S model? Or go with the longer style?
You guys are helping a lot. Keep coming up with more information. It's a good project.
Thanks again.
Link Posted: 12/13/2001 9:58:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2001 9:57:41 PM EDT by Full_Spectrum]
On weight: Once you throw a scope, base, rings, swivels, and a sling, you will be up around 10-11 lbs. No way around it.

I didn't put a bipod on mine, because the oregon bush always has a log, stump, tree, rock, or something else to rest on if you need to. If there is nothing, use your pack.

Bipods are a luxury in my book, they add weight, get caught in things, kinda hang out up there, and I never feel like it slings up just right with a bipod on it. Just my opinion.

You won't be sorry with the LTR though. Weight aside, mine shoots under moa all day long with most match ammo, and shoots ragged holes with Hornady TAP/Match ammo.

From what I understand the flutes not only aid in cooling, but add to barrel rigidity, which adds to it's accuracy.

It's light, portable, a nice rifle to pack around. I like the stock better then the full size PSS (Don't like the palm swell for anything other then bench shooting).

I think for your usage and application, which sounds a lot like mine, this would be the best bet for you. You'll be more happy with your purchase in the long run, because you'll have more uses for your rifle, and that means you'll shoot it more!

At around 10 lbs, if I only had to grab one rifle, it would be the ltr.

My .02

Keep us posted.

_FS
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 1:05:23 AM EDT
BM007 asked..."Without dumping $300 for scope mounting equipment made of ordnance grade steel, what detachable mount system would be recommended that saves weight and money???"

I have Warne (Maxima?) detachable rings and Leupold bases on both my .308 LTR and .300WM Model 70. Rugged, inexpensive and reliable return to zero. Lots of folks don't like detachables but I carry spare glass and never have a problem.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 1:18:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 11:14:56 AM EDT


Fluting a barrel does NOT add rigidity, it diminishes rigidity. Anytime you remove material, you diminish the barrel's rigidity. The advantage that fluting has (over turning the barrel down to a skinnier profile) is that it reduces rigidity LESS than removing the same amount of mass by turning the barrel down.

Sorry, just part of my crusade to kill myth and misinformation whenever it rears its ugly head.

-Troy



Maybe you need to email remington and tell them they are fibbing to all the PD out there.

www.remingtonle.com/rifle/700p.htm

"Model 700P LTR (Light Tactical Rifle), chambered for .308 Win. and .223 Rem, features a slimmed down stock. The flutes in the 20" LTR not only assist in weight reduction and heat dissipation, but are engineered to enhance barrel rigidity for pinpoint accuracy."

They are mis-informing the public if what you say is true.

_FS
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 11:21:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2001 11:14:49 AM EDT by Troy]
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 4:50:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BusMaster007:
Without dumping $300 for scope mounting equipment made of ordnance grade steel, what detachable mount system would be recommended that saves weight and money???



ARMS #22 rings.

Link Posted: 12/14/2001 5:24:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2001 5:18:48 PM EDT by BusMaster007]
Hey, Phil!
So, that's what you were telling me about at the show?

I'll need to know what mount, and how much...

Lesse, that'll be-
one mount at $xxx
+ two sets of rings, 1" size for $xxx= $$$



I found some real good info on The Firing Line Forum on the LTR.
www.thefiringline.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=138887&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
If that link doesn't work, try the home page and do a search on LTR:
www.thefiringline.com/forums/index.php?s=
Thanks, Phil.
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 9:48:56 PM EDT
OK, guys, I won't beat the dead horsemeat on this one any more.
I spent 3 HOURS looking at the LTR stuff on Firing Line and need to give it a rest!
Man, I got brain fade.

Time to let the info drip through the sive.
Thanks a LOT for all the help.
It's a 2 or 3 year old story I'm just getting hip to, but, the time is right for me.
Thanks again for the homework.
I'll be thinking it through for a few months and get back to ya!
Link Posted: 12/14/2001 11:17:43 PM EDT
I also believe that fluting a barrel does not increase its rigidity. However, I would like to add that it does not decrease it rigidity.

Before I state my beliefs, let my give you some brain teasers:

In a solid piece of steel round-stock (no bore), fluting this piece of stock definitely would not increase rigidity and would only add benefit from increased thermal dissipation characteristics by increasing the external surface area and allowing more radiative and conductive heat transfer.
In a piece of hollow stock, the same does not hold true. We know that a piece of electrical conduit would have increased rigidity if the once round circumference were changed to a “torx head” type shape.

Given a light (in terms of circumference) AR barrel with a 5.56mm bore, there is any benefit (rigidity wise) to the fluting??? I do not have the mathematics at my disposal. However, if there was, the structural integrity would depend on the ratio of outer barrel circumference to bore diameter to fluting depth. In other words, for the relatively small 5.56mm bore, overly deep fluting would decrease barrel rigidity. Also the same thermal benefits apply.


To reinforce my first statement: “I also believe that fluting a barrel does not increase its rigidity. However, I would like to add that it does not decrease it rigidity.”
I would state that the same zero-force theories in barrel fluting can be seen in bridge trusses, crane booms, etc. As long as a sheer force is not in line with two of the fluting divots, 180 degrees apart, the barrel remains as rigid as a solid barrel. Since the forces opposed on a rifle barrel never are of one vector alone, the barrel suffers no loss in integrity. Does it make a better pry bar? No!. A better barrel; yes. Why? For the weight and thermal benefits.
I’m going to make a point to look further into this because I’m a geeky engineer and it interests me. One question I have is why barrel fluting never involves a semi-circle recess and always a triangular recess.
Top Top