PGW Coyote feedback
- Thread starter Falcon77
- Start date
I feel like you are taking this from a military aficionado/historian perspective rather then from a shooters perspective.
1:10 in .308 works. Twist rate isn't going to change the accuracy of the bullet (as long as it's stabilized), regardless of what you may believe with your limited sample size of personal rifles. That is much more dependent on the quality of barrel, and the quality and type of chamber used. Many LE units use a 1:10 twist (where accuracy is every bit as prudent as it is for a mil sniper, if not even more so), as do some military groups.
The military has weird reasons why they use what they use. Like I stated earlier, it's not always because it's the best performing option. The companies that advocated for 1:11.25 twist during procurement phases may have provided the most hookers for all we know. My guess is that it's a hold over from days were we didn't have as good of understanding of rifle ballistics as we do now. The trend is to go faster and faster twists to take advantage of BC and gain extra stability through the transonic phase - the military just needs to catch up.
If you are so focused on getting a very specific ammo to shoot, twist rate is not what you need to be looking at. You need to be looking at chambers. Militaries usually don't have the most stringent requirements on precision for their sniper rifles, and I think you are reading way too much into their twist rates and giving them too much credit. You have nothing to lose by going 1:10 twist, and gain the advantage of extra stability and BC boost (better ballistic performance).
At the end of the day, it's your rifle and I wish you the best of luck. But I hope people aren't reading this thread and thinking they need 1:11.25 twist to shoot 175 SMK's and FGMM, because that thinking is flat wrong.
The magazines will be the shortcoming, it most likely won't work without modifying the mags. That's why there are 6BR spacer mag kits for AICS pattern magazines, as well as MDT's 6BR dedicated mags. The short fat 6BR cases don't generally work well out of mags designed for bigger/longer counterparts.
I do know of someone who is contemplating turning their PGW Coyote into a 6 Dasher next season, but he needs to get a spacer kit custom made for his mags. Not sure if that project is going to happen or not.
One of our guys runs a 6 Dasher and it functions great. We had a limited number of the MDT ACC stocks inlet for the Coyote and they took the MDT mags which are available in a BR size.
Last edited:
What you're saying is a lot of speculation. Based on nothing other than trying to support your civilian based shooting bias. This isn't for competition shooting.
I frankly know exactly what I need to be looking at and how it works. I appreciate your comments, but this is a different type of rifle than what your wheelhouse seems to encompass. Let's just disagree and move on.
I guess I better tell my 1:10 .308 rifle which was built by the civilian armourer of the LASD SEB team, who has also built rifles for over 800 alphabet agencies (including military groups), that it's not allowed to shoot 175 FGMM ammo well. That rifle is far from a comp gun, it's definitely not designed for competition shooting and very much aligned with what you want to achieve (designed for .gov work to shoot factory .308 FGMM well).
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions yourself, including about what rifles I own and what type of shooting I do, along with why some militaries have gone with a 1:11.25 twist. You don't have to listen to me, but even PGW is saying 1:10 will work just fine for your purposes.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to help you out as you seem to have some misconceptions on how twist rates effect precision. Your preconceived notions about twist rates and ballistics seem to be counter to that of a lot of people, including Berger's chief ballistician Bryan Litz. Besides the assumptions you are making, you haven't provided any evidence or studies as to why a 1:11.25 twist is better for certain 175 grain ammo. You also haven't been able to state why some militaries have stuck with the 1:11.25 twist, beyond your own assumptions and opinion. And you haven't presented any evidence as to why a 1:10 twist barrel won't work for what you are trying to achieve.
You are right, this conversation really has no need to go further as we seem to be running in circles and you have it all figured out. You asked about 1:10 twist rates and how it will work with the ammo you want to use. Everyone who's responded to your inquiry has said it will work just fine, but because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions based off of limited experience and false assumptions you've simply decided to toss it all aside. I don't know why you even asked, as you don't seem open at all to hearing about opinions or evidence that counters your misconceptions. You've already decided what you need, and PGW has said they can accommodate it, even though it's unnecessary.
PS - Accuracy International, who makes rifles for more .gov agencies and militaries then most any other rifle manufacturer, sells .308's in 1:10 twist. So the PGW Coyote is not an "oddball". As I already mentioned, TacOps barrels their .308's in 1:10 twist, which are designed for .gov agencies to shoot factory loaded FGMM (exactly what you want to shoot, with a 1/4 MOA or better accuracy guarantee to boot). There's probably plenty other examples around as well if I cared to look, which would poke holes in your speculation and thesis on the 1:11.25 twist.
Last edited:
Since you couldn't provide any info as to why the US military uses 1:11.25 twist, I took it upon myself to do a little digging. There isn't much out there, the only thing I could find is the below post on another forum. The bold part at the end mentions why the 1:11.25 twist was adopted. How true this is, I don't know. I haven't seen any sources linked to corroborate this info. I haven't been able to find any other info that states why the US military uses 1:11.25 twist for .308's. Since you seem to know so much about the history of twist rates and military applications, perhaps you could help out further.
In 1892 the Army switched from the .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield Rifle to the .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen and there was much rejoicing. The .30-40 Krag was load with a 220 grain jacketed lead round nose bullet fired at around 2000 fps. This bullet required a 1 in 10 inch twist to stabilize this built. During the Spanish-American War in 1898 the .30-40 Krag cartridge and Krag-Jorgensen Rifle that fired proved less effective the Spanish Mauser and 7mm Mauser that was used against them.
So, back to the drawing bored again and the 1903 Springfield Rifle and the .30-03 cartridge to fired from it were born. The .30-03 kept the 220 grain bullet (and the 1-10 twist) but increased the velocity to about 2100 fps. About this time every other country in the world was implementing lighter, faster spitzer type bullets that were more accurate at longer ranges.
Back to the drawing board again for the .30-06. A 150 Grain bullet traveling at 2750 FPS was decided upon. And the cartridge renamed .30-06 At the time all of the tooling and all of the machines used to make rifle barrels were set-up for the 1-10 twist. Since the testing was conducted in a relatively short period time and tooling was extremely expensive at the 1-10 twist was retained. In actuality, a 1-14 Twist barrel is sufficient to stabilize the 150 grain bullet at that velocity. While the 1-10 twist is over-stabilizing the 150 grain bullet, accuracy was still “good enough for government work” and delivered under the 3” at 100 yards requirement. Also, it is a thick Full-metal jacket bullet, so there was no fear of jacket failure due to excess RPM.
On the commercial front, as gun manufacturers started to produce rifles and ammunition for the .30-06, the used the 1-10 twist because they had the tooling and accuracy was sufficient. Also several manufacturers continued to load the 220 grain bullets for hunting large and dangerous game which requires the 1-10 twist. So, commercial manufacturers use the 1-10 twist in .30-06.
After WWII and further reinforced during the Korean Conflict, The powers that be decided that they needed, reduced recoil and more “Firepower” and decided to switch to the M14 and the 7.62 x 51mm NATO and 147 Grain bullets. Again, the tooling available was mostly geared for the 1-10 twist and again it was good enough for Government work. It was not until the National Match teams started playing with the M14 did things change. First, the adoption of the best target bullet, at the time, was adopted, the 168 Sierra Match King. Second, Lake City NM Brass was made available and the M852 Match ammo was born. Third, a proper chamber was designed. And lastly, a better twist rate was chosen, the 1-12.0. In most circumstances a 1-13 would have been sufficient, but the 1-12 provides a little bit of insurance. Later on when the M852 was dropped in favor of the M118LR with the 175 grain Sierra Match King (which can stay supersonic to longer ranges than the 168 because of higher ballistic co-efficient), the 1-12.0 twist remained because it can actually stabilize a 185 grain bullet in most circumstances.
So why were most factory .308 Winchester guns still using a 1-10.0 twist? That's what they were still geared up for in .30 caliber production and accuracy was factory acceptable. This also why all .300 win mags are also a 1-10 twist.
So, where the hell did the 1-11.25 twist come from and why? Once upon a time the Military asked a well known barrel maker to make some barrels for them. They specified a 1-12.0 Twist. This barrel maker informed them that he did not have a gear for his machine that would make a 1-12.0. He could make a 1-11.25 twist or a 1-13.0 twist. They chose the 1-11.25 (faster is always better for the Military, see the 62 grain 5.56 bullet in a 1-7.0 twist barrel). The barrels shot much better than the barrels that they had been using, so on all future orders they listed a 1-11.25 twist and through the magic of red tape this became a requirement.
In 1892 the Army switched from the .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield Rifle to the .30-40 Krag-Jorgensen and there was much rejoicing. The .30-40 Krag was load with a 220 grain jacketed lead round nose bullet fired at around 2000 fps. This bullet required a 1 in 10 inch twist to stabilize this built. During the Spanish-American War in 1898 the .30-40 Krag cartridge and Krag-Jorgensen Rifle that fired proved less effective the Spanish Mauser and 7mm Mauser that was used against them.
So, back to the drawing bored again and the 1903 Springfield Rifle and the .30-03 cartridge to fired from it were born. The .30-03 kept the 220 grain bullet (and the 1-10 twist) but increased the velocity to about 2100 fps. About this time every other country in the world was implementing lighter, faster spitzer type bullets that were more accurate at longer ranges.
Back to the drawing board again for the .30-06. A 150 Grain bullet traveling at 2750 FPS was decided upon. And the cartridge renamed .30-06 At the time all of the tooling and all of the machines used to make rifle barrels were set-up for the 1-10 twist. Since the testing was conducted in a relatively short period time and tooling was extremely expensive at the 1-10 twist was retained. In actuality, a 1-14 Twist barrel is sufficient to stabilize the 150 grain bullet at that velocity. While the 1-10 twist is over-stabilizing the 150 grain bullet, accuracy was still “good enough for government work” and delivered under the 3” at 100 yards requirement. Also, it is a thick Full-metal jacket bullet, so there was no fear of jacket failure due to excess RPM.
On the commercial front, as gun manufacturers started to produce rifles and ammunition for the .30-06, the used the 1-10 twist because they had the tooling and accuracy was sufficient. Also several manufacturers continued to load the 220 grain bullets for hunting large and dangerous game which requires the 1-10 twist. So, commercial manufacturers use the 1-10 twist in .30-06.
After WWII and further reinforced during the Korean Conflict, The powers that be decided that they needed, reduced recoil and more “Firepower” and decided to switch to the M14 and the 7.62 x 51mm NATO and 147 Grain bullets. Again, the tooling available was mostly geared for the 1-10 twist and again it was good enough for Government work. It was not until the National Match teams started playing with the M14 did things change. First, the adoption of the best target bullet, at the time, was adopted, the 168 Sierra Match King. Second, Lake City NM Brass was made available and the M852 Match ammo was born. Third, a proper chamber was designed. And lastly, a better twist rate was chosen, the 1-12.0. In most circumstances a 1-13 would have been sufficient, but the 1-12 provides a little bit of insurance. Later on when the M852 was dropped in favor of the M118LR with the 175 grain Sierra Match King (which can stay supersonic to longer ranges than the 168 because of higher ballistic co-efficient), the 1-12.0 twist remained because it can actually stabilize a 185 grain bullet in most circumstances.
So why were most factory .308 Winchester guns still using a 1-10.0 twist? That's what they were still geared up for in .30 caliber production and accuracy was factory acceptable. This also why all .300 win mags are also a 1-10 twist.
So, where the hell did the 1-11.25 twist come from and why? Once upon a time the Military asked a well known barrel maker to make some barrels for them. They specified a 1-12.0 Twist. This barrel maker informed them that he did not have a gear for his machine that would make a 1-12.0. He could make a 1-11.25 twist or a 1-13.0 twist. They chose the 1-11.25 (faster is always better for the Military, see the 62 grain 5.56 bullet in a 1-7.0 twist barrel). The barrels shot much better than the barrels that they had been using, so on all future orders they listed a 1-11.25 twist and through the magic of red tape this became a requirement.
Last edited:
Already explained the rationale of one ammunition and a barrel specifically for that ammunition. The military seems to keep their research to themselves. Weird. Even PGW advised their 1:10 twist is to allow sub sonic ammo with a suppressor. The estimated 15,000 M24 rifles produced seem to be more than a small sample.
As for the origin Rather than variations of the Springfield accidental 1:11 twist myth check out Obermeyer including chambers and Mike Rock for the entry of this twist rate along with 5R rifling into military 308 rifles. There’s the origin of the M24 barrels, M110 and LMT. There’s your entry point.
As for the AI rifles. I’m not sure what the specs are on UK ammunition for sniping ( 168 or 175?)or when they moved to 338lm as their primary sniper round. It is a 1980’s rifle and the 308 round as an actual sniper rifle seemed to be phased out as they used 338lm prominently in Afghanistan. Their latest marksman rifle the L129A1 is a LMT MWS with 1:11.25 twist. This is the newest 308 precision rifle to enter service with the UK.
Another rifle to take note of is the LaRue OBR. Teams have been doing very well with them in sniper competitions. In 2010 3 of the top 4 rifles used for the US sniper competition were LaRue OBR. With 1:11.25 twist.
PGW has kindly offered to do this twist rate. So it’s not an issue. Thanks for the input but I’ve been down this road a few times before. Let’s just chalk it up to personal preference and go our separate ways.
As for the origin Rather than variations of the Springfield accidental 1:11 twist myth check out Obermeyer including chambers and Mike Rock for the entry of this twist rate along with 5R rifling into military 308 rifles. There’s the origin of the M24 barrels, M110 and LMT. There’s your entry point.
As for the AI rifles. I’m not sure what the specs are on UK ammunition for sniping ( 168 or 175?)or when they moved to 338lm as their primary sniper round. It is a 1980’s rifle and the 308 round as an actual sniper rifle seemed to be phased out as they used 338lm prominently in Afghanistan. Their latest marksman rifle the L129A1 is a LMT MWS with 1:11.25 twist. This is the newest 308 precision rifle to enter service with the UK.
Another rifle to take note of is the LaRue OBR. Teams have been doing very well with them in sniper competitions. In 2010 3 of the top 4 rifles used for the US sniper competition were LaRue OBR. With 1:11.25 twist.
PGW has kindly offered to do this twist rate. So it’s not an issue. Thanks for the input but I’ve been down this road a few times before. Let’s just chalk it up to personal preference and go our separate ways.
Last edited:
At the end of the day, I'm happy that PGW can accomodate you, and ultimately that's what matters. A 1:11.25 twist works, and there is nothing wrong with it for .308. I've never suggested otherwise in this thread. I just want to clear up the misconception that a 1:11.25 twist is more optimal then a 1:10 twist for 175 grain projectiles, because that is completely false and predicated on pure speculation and false equivalencies on your part. Both will shoot a 175 grain bullet just fine and to the same degree of precision, all else equal.
We all have preferences, and that's fine. But let's not spread misconceptions in the process of supporting your preferences.
1. You assume that twist plays a large part in performance and precision of a projectile - incorrect, as long as the bullet is stabilized (above ~1.5 SG) and not overspun to the point that jackets and cores are deforming. There is no accuracy difference between a 1:10 and a 1:11.25 twist in a .308.
2. You assume that the military has done very extensive testing of twist rates for .308's, and in their testing have concluded that the 1:11.25 twist is better then the 1:10 - there's no evidence to support this, this is pure speculation on your part. Other tests conducted on twist rates have not supported any difference in precision as long as the conditions outlined at the end of point #1 are met.
3. You assume that based on your previous experience that your 1:10 twist barrels didn't shoot as well as your 1:11.25 twist barrels because of the twist - again, much more to do with barrel quality, chamber quality and chamber specs. Coincidentally, you must've had better barrels/chambers and or chamber specs on your 1:11.25 rifles that ended up being more optimal for the ammo you were shooting. Your statistically irrelevant sample size from your experience, which wasn't conducted in any meaningful scientific method that isolates variables, does not provide evidence that 1:11.25 twist is more accurate then 1:10 for .308.
Enjoy your PGW rifle, whether it's a 1:10 or a 1:11.25, I'm sure it's going to live up to and perhaps even exceed your expectations. Talk with PGW about reamers and chamber specs for your factory ammo of choice, that will make a much bigger impact on precision then the barrel twist.
One thing to add, is that a 6GT may work without having to modify mags/mag kits in a PGW coyote.
It's a touch longer then a dasher, it was designed to work out of short action mags without mag modification. It was designed to essentially be a 6 Dasher without the issues of mag modifications and fire forming. It's designed to operate out of standard short action magazines.
That may be a good route to go for the PGW coyote, if you want a short fat 6mm cartridge.
That's why M1 garand became very expensive , Thanks to Hollywood ,
the GOV must spend the taxes they collected , US Military receive high budget ,
this vivideo is not out of the topic , it just for you to understand what military spend or decide is not what you think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvSS1CXewZ8
and
if you visit this page you will become a collector of Mark 4 Leupold and may price of Mark 44 goes up
https://www.leupold.com/leupold-core/stories/30-years-of-service
By the way I have a custom built M14 GWLA with heavy Keriger barrel 22 inch 1:10 NM , shoots better than all semi auto 308 on the market , no matter what bullet weight 147 or 175 . an accurate rifle will shoot acurate in any bullet because we have too many factors will affect on accuracy and that amount of twist rate doesn't count (fact) , However I would go with 1:10 instead of 1:11:25 , ( my own experience and opinion.)
Please do not share your opinion as a fact because US military spent money on project , so they had a reason to spend more on program and build new weapons.
Like I said even if 1:11:25 selected by all military
you offered here for everyone to google and find information , THAT IS THE ROOT OF PROBLEMS , you follow pen pencil and paper ,
Stop asking questions from google ,
I went through this about 15 years ago with all the same arguments. I was able to get 1;10 twist barrels to also shoot exceptionally well. But I had to reload. It was a rare barrel in that twist rate that shot 168 and 175 SMK Federal Gold match ammo well. Usually 1 moa for 5 round shots. Some would give the odd weird flier with the lower velocity Federal Gold. Not acceptable for a precision rifle.
Then I found out about this rifle called the Remington 5R milspec. Took it out and put in factory match ammunition. Shoots like a custom, without having to tweak reloads. Just a 2.8 OAL, 168 or 175 SMK round with normal load. Nothing special, easy to get and often on sale. When I do reload it took me all of 2 seconds to get the right load. I just looked up the pre M14 M118LR specs and based it off that. Easy sub .5 moa.
So now you are stating that I'm basing all of this on the internet. I own and have owned a lot of different rifles. 308 is one of my favourite calibres to shoot.
So... you don't trust the US military doing the research to create the Nato precision 7.62x51 rounds known as M852, M118 and M118LR. The research on production of the round was also down by Federal and the direct result for sport shooters is Federal Gold match ammo. There are also other designations that differe slightly such as the Naval warfare center with MK316 mod 0 etc.
We could get into all the government procurement etc that you want. I've had experience as the end user of this process. But.. let's not wast time with the process. I will say one thing, if it wasn't working there wouldn't have been 15,000 M24 rifles in the US military.
So let's bring it more home. Since I"m only basing my experience from the internet....
Canada's semi auto precision project:
So Canada in 2004 needed to field a semi auto precision rifle for the sniper's spotters. This was a direct need for Afghanistan deployment. Much like the US with the M110, the UK with the LMT MWS and the Germans with the G28. Well a company many know on here since they are a sponsor put together some Armalite AR10t rifles for the contract. The contract was small with about 18 rifles only along with replacements when needed. The rifle they put together was an Armalite AR10 with 24" Lothar Walther barrel in 1:11.25 twist rate. Badger ordnance stabalizer handguard with accuracy speaks A2 stock. They were obviously given parameters they had to meet by the Canadian military including the ammunition it would have to shoot. There were 6 prototype rifles (1 extra as a spare as well) and they underwent 200 rounds each by the military for testing before the design was accepted and then fielded in combat by Canada.
So, the barrel length I can understand only because it was a spotters rifle and likely dictated by the contract the length they wanted. But that was an odd twist rate to choose. Lothar Walther made 1:10 back then. In fact most AR10 rifles back then that were precision rifles had that twist rate. I know because I owned one. The civilian AR10 target rifle came with a 1:10 twist barrel. This was a small project with what at the time were less common and expensive additions such as the Badger stablizer handguard, GG&G tridium backup sights and the accuracy speaks adjustable stock pad for the A2.
Here's a photo of the two I own. One is a confirmed one of the prototype rifles. The other is a bring back (IE one of the uppers that was replaced for the military. For a while rather than servicing the uppers, they were just replaced and some were able to buy them. That however stopped).
I own two of these fairly rare rifles. I have owned three, however I sold one to a buddy. I have shot 4 of these rifles. They are all sub .5 moa with off the shelf match ammo, or ammo loaded to the M118LR specs. There are three of us that used to shoot together that own these rifles. We also all own Remington 5R milspecs and interchange the ammunition with those bolt guns and these semi autos.
Here's a group a buddy of mine shot with one of these rifles using my M118LR round. He was using a 3-9X Burris fullfield II scope, harris bipod and rear bag. 100 yards (Correction it was 100 metres) , 5 rounds. Shame he threw the 4th round.
Here's a quick thread on his first outing with his AR10t. We had two of them on the line that day.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/533010-Thursday-with-the-twins-at-the-Mission-range?highlight=Mission+twins
So here is a specialized project for the Canadian department of national defence, with precision semi autos for combat. The ammunition paramaters were set. Looking at the options selected at the time, this wasn't a lowest bid project. The company sold many military grade rifles including AI. Yet here we are.
For those wondering, the company was Wolverine supplies.
My personal experience. I own 308 rifles with 1:10 twist, even one with a 1:12 twist. Yes I can get them to shoot. But... my experience with the 1:10 twist barrels has been I have to tailor the ammunition for the barrel in order for this to work. Generally they shoot 168 and 175 Federal Gold marginally. About 1 moa. Reload and up the powder and you are good to go. Usually in the 44 varget range. However Federal Gold is in the 43 varget range. Some of my rifles don't make the accuracy node. The round stablizes fine. But the overall of the barrel with twist rate, barrel length doesn't make the accuracy node without reloading. I guess it does if you find 1 moa acceptable out of rifles that are easily capable of sub .5 moa.
So I'm basing what I know from what I read am I? Well another group of us were the first with the Kel tec RFB. Our had 18.6" 1:11.25 twist barrels on them. The shorter length did pose an issue and is why I like 20-24" barrels for semi auto. Along with the Kel tec barrel quality, it being chrome lined and the rifle being built off the barrel as the spine. The test RFB was sent to a well known bolt shooter who did up a bunch of reloads etc. The reloads were wrong. The best was about 2-2.5 moa. We were told that this was the best the rifle would do. So we took it upon ourselves to do our own ammo testing. Here's the thread: Spoiler alert , 1.5 moa with 5 rounds at 100 was achieved. The best ammo? 168 Federal gold with 168 reloads ie M852 round being dead on for this rifle. We actually reloaded at the range as well. Good times. If nothing else it shows you that I tend to do some testing myself rather than just reading as a few on here seem to keep suggesting.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/552746-RFB-initial-thoughts-Range-report-***JANUARY-31st-ammo-test-at-bottom-of-OP***?highlight=RFB
Now I take my 5R milspecs, MY AR10t rifles, LMT MWS (20" SS Mike rock barrel), etc etc and they shoot the same off the shelf ammunition or the one reload I have. I can interchange the ammunition between all of them and they shoot sub .5 moa. I've already factored in other variables such as chambers, barrel lengths and barrel quality. This isn't new to me, nor is it based off the internet. I will also add that my Stag 10 was built with the same premise. I took it out the other day and sighted it in. The results were exactly what I expected. Predictable, accurate and interchangeable with my other rifles.
Right here is the main issue that many don't seem to understand. I want to be able to shoot the same ammunition in all of them, without tailoring the round to the gun. Not just bullet length/weight but actually loaded ammunition. Who else has that same goal? Military. It's not a matter of actual accuracy as I can also reload to the barrel just like everyone else. It's a matter of accuracy out of the box with the off the shelf standard match ammo. Federal Gold is the benchmark for off the shelf match ammunition.
When I get my PGW I will request the 1:11.25 twist rate. You guys/gals are free to choose whatever you want. That's what's so great about having choices.
Last edited:
With all due respect, you have a pretty poor understanding of internal ballistics. You attribute the twist rate to having the biggest effect of precision of a rifle with a given ammo, when there are so many other factors that are much more important to getting a rifle to shoot a specific ammo well.
We all understand what your goal is, you are just going about it wrong due to your lack of knowledge in internal ballistics.
I hope Santa is nice to you and gets you some Bryan Litz books or a precision rifle training course for Christmas. I think that would be more beneficial to your shooting then a 1:11.25 twist over a 1:10.
We all understand what your goal is, you are just going about it wrong due to your lack of knowledge in internal ballistics.
I hope Santa is nice to you and gets you some Bryan Litz books or a precision rifle training course for Christmas. I think that would be more beneficial to your shooting then a 1:11.25 twist over a 1:10.
I've already given you an example of this, a guy that has built rifles for over 800 alphabet agencies. He is currently the civilian armorer of the LASD SEB. His thing is making very accurate rifles for .gov that shoot factory FGMM ammo.
He uses 1:10 twist rifles, and guarantees 1/4 MOA accuracy or better with factory FGMM. His test targets that ship with the rifles are usually groups that are 1/10 MOA or less, shot with FGMM.
It's exactly the same thing you are trying to accomplish. I know of no single other precision rifle company that has built their rifles around a specific ammo to shoot as well as he does it, the whole rifle is built from the ground up to shoot FGMM. No one accomplishes what you are trying to achieve better then TacOps. And he uses a 1:10 twist. Much more demanding accuracy tolerances then military, and all with factory ammo.
For every piece of anecdotal evidence you provide, there's other anecdotal evidence that counters the story you are trying to tell. But your story is incomplete, as you aren't factoring in what really makes a specific ammo shoot well out of a rifle. There's much more to internal ballistics then barrel twist. Much more.
Last edited:
