18" Remington 5R Performance

Gunslinger

Gunslinger

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
199   0   0
Some interesting results from a Rem 5R cut down to 18 1/8".
43.8gr Varget, 175gr SMK, CCI BR2, Winchester brass, COAL 2.8", 2 358fps MV

My brother shot this 5 round group at 500M, 4 shots into 7/8" the 5th opening it to 2 15/16". A lucky group perhaps, but someone was working their gear and did it!

The 18" tube performed well but had to be worked beyond 600M, generally hovering just outside MOA. Hits at 1000M on a 24" plate in wind were doable but the bullets were clearly running out of steam. I would say 600-700M is it's max effective range, haven't worked the numbers but the bullets are likely going subsonic somewhere around 700M. If I recall there was 46 MOA dialed in (0 cant base) at 1000M.

Short tubes work!


 
Last edited:
Darn, that's a familiar looking range!

According to the Sierra ballistics program, the bullet will be going subsonic at about 700m. Some bullets do not destabilize when going transonic, so that is not necessarily a deal breaker.
At 800m, a 10mph crosswind would require a correction of 8.8 minutes.
The .308 155 Lapua Scenar from my long barrelled TR at 2950 would require 6.1 minutes of correction.
The .264 139 Lapua Scenar from my long barrelled precision/sniper rifle at 2900 needs 4.9 minutes in the same conditions.
I refer to 800m, because that is the longest range for ORA/DCRA sniper/precision competition.
At 500m, the numbers are 4.9 vs 3.4 vs 2.8 minutes.

A short barrel can be very accurate; accuracy isn't dependent on barrel length. But once ranges are extended, velocity really matters.
 
Last edited:
No one with knowledge debates whether a short barrel works, however 2350 FPS is slow. Really slow.

My 20" barrel on my SPS I was getting 2730 out of 178gr with Varget (44.5)

My 5R (24") is getting 2500fps with 208gr. I can easily push that mid 2600's but I chose a lower charge because it holds more velocity and force at 1100 yards than a firmly pushed 178.

If it works for you that's great. Obviously something is working. If you don't shoot further I wouldn't bother changing it.
 
Don't know what bullet you are shooting, but .308 210 Sierra MK @ 2500 requires wind correction of 3.3 minutes at 500 and 5.8 at 800. 3.4 and 6.1 at 800 for the 155 Scenar. 2.8 and 4.9 for the .264 139 Scenar.
Pretty darn similar to the lighter .308 bullet at higher velocity.
 
Shibby! said:
No one with knowledge debates whether a short barrel works, however 2350 FPS is slow. Really slow.

My 20" barrel on my SPS I was getting 2730 out of 178gr with Varget (44.5)

My 5R (24") is getting 2500fps with 208gr. I can easily push that mid 2600's but I chose a lower charge because it holds more velocity and force at 1100 yards than a firmly pushed 178.

If it works for you that's great. Obviously something is working. If you don't shoot further I wouldn't bother changing it.
Click to expand...

I get 2655 out of my 20" Savage: 175 Hornady HPBT/44.5 Varget/2.865 OAL/Lapua Brass. My ballistic calculators have this load supersonic past 1K.

I'm not going to say what's safe in another shooter's rifle, but that does seem slow to me.
 
Silverado said:
I get 2655 out of my 20" Savage: 175 Hornady HPBT/44.5 Varget/2.865 OAL/Lapua Brass. My ballistic calculators have this load supersonic past 1K.

I'm not going to say what's safe in another shooter's rifle, but that does seem slow to me.
Click to expand...

500m - 4.1 minutes; 800m - 7.5 minutes.
 
Spent about 30 minutes trying different loads, was rushed, and this worked so we ran with it. We could easily push it more, I suspect 2450fps is about as much as can be reasonably expected, perhaps someday, but to what end? I have a .260 that makes it to 1000M without effort so this is fine for what it does. 2730fps out of a 20" barrel with 178's is impressive, sounds like you're pushing them quite hard though. Velocity isn't everything, if I cared that much about it I wouldn't have chopped the barrel to 18". What this is however is a very handy precision rig that can be carried and relied upon to make precise shots within the effective capabilities of the cartridge, without being on the ragged edge. I'm thinking a lower powered smaller scope is the next order of business, something like the March 1-8x24 FFP with side focus, that would make it even more compact.
 
There's so much to like about it. FFP, 1x is handy, illuminated, etched miling reticle, mil/mil, lots of adjustment, zero stop, SIDE FOCUS! They cost a bit, fine, but then supply crappy lens covers and provide a less than stellar warranty, WTF?? For that price it should at least come with some Butler Creek flip ups, what would that cost them $20??
 
Shibby! said:
I'd argue that weight matters. (See the above response)
Click to expand...

I'd argue a combination of high BC and velocity matter when it comes to longrange shooting, especially when you are approaching the transonic zone. This is where BC takes a real dive and also where higher BC bullets gain an extra 100 m or so in efficient flight.
 
arcticcathonda said:
I'd argue a combination of high BC and velocity matter when it comes to longrange shooting, especially when you are approaching the transonic zone. This is where BC takes a real dive and also where higher BC bullets gain an extra 100 m or so in efficient flight.
Click to expand...

Often with higher weight comes higher B.C. I know there are a few exceptions like a 155 scenar, but compare that BC to a 208GR AMAX which is .6+

I can launch the 208 slower and it will carry further, faster, and with a bigger hit all with less bucking from the wind.

All bullet weights have their places, but it's hard to say just velocity matters. I agree a lot more with you then with "speed matters", because at the end of the day it really doesn't to other factors you mentioned.

I do think the OP could get more speed, but as mentioned, it's working for what he does. No point in changing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom