Anschutz 64 Tactical Trainer
- Thread starter savagecanuck
- Start date
Of course. It's simply just not relevant to this thread about the Anschutz Trainer, which has nothing to do with Running Boar rifles.
It is completely relevant given that the concepts of the running boar design will be evident, at least in theory, in the flared design of this rifle, regardless of the design intention and purpose.
But thanks for your diligent policing of what is and what is not relevant.
I apologize if I offended your sensibilities. My observations were not meant to cause peevishness or give you the feeling that I was policing anyone's comments or looking over your shoulder. I was only saying that the "running boar design" that the barrel's "flared" end is claimed to represent is not relevant here because the rifle is not a running boar rifle, the barrel is not designed as a running boar barrel, and that any similarities are not intended to give the impression that it is inspired by or is a representation of a running boar rifle/barrel. The characteristics loosely defined in post #13 are not unique to RB barrels. Indeed Anschutz bench rest rifles have "flared" muzzle areas that in no way are related to "spritely handling" of such rifles.
Apparently I didn't explain myself well, or perhaps the concept. The running boar design is relevant to any "flared at the muzzle" barrel, because regardless of the design "intent" the barrel will realize some degree (however small) of rebound choke as the external diameter of the barrel is relieved to a greater degree along its length as compared to at the muzzle... as is the case in both the running boar design (where rebound choke is intentional) and with this Anschutz trainer, whether intentional or as a by-product of their sighting system design.
Sensibilities... not offended.
I'm curious how the flared muzzle produces a choke? When one follows the barrel making process -> Drill -> contour -> ream -> rifle -> lap, a bore with consistent dimensions is the product. Pending the lapping technique, a slight gradual tightening of the bore will be present from breech to muzzle, but no sudden, abrubt "choke" near the muzzle.
If any maker contours as a final step to make a "choke, I do not want their barrel as it is liable to have great inconsistencies through it's length.
If any maker contours as a final step to make a "choke, I do not want their barrel as it is liable to have great inconsistencies through it's length.
I'm curious about whether or not it will shoot cheap, HV hollow points well. If so, I may have found my new gopher rifle. 
Anybody here buying one? If so, I'd love to hear a range report...and please try every ammo you can get your hands on. I'll even contribute if you're local.
Anybody here buying one? If so, I'd love to hear a range report...and please try every ammo you can get your hands on. I'll even contribute if you're local.
Glen (Grauhanen) is right about the swelling of the Anschutz barrel at the muzzle. The barrels on all the Anschutz match rifles are contoured this way, and on many, this swollen 4" or so at the muzzle is not grooved for front sights. You'll find this barrel contour on the older silhouette Anschutzes like the 54.18 as well, which are strictly scope-sighted. As I understand it, this is to impart some choke at the muzzle. I haven't encountered the term "rebound choke" before, but hoytcanon has captured the concept in his comments. When the rest of the barrel is turned down, this very slightly enlarges the bore from the chamber to the muzzle section, leaving it slightly tighter at the muzzle (where it has been turned down less). Bill Calfee, in a somewhat similar vein, has stated that he prefers straight barrels (no taper from receiver to muzzle) because he believes the taper results in slight enlargement towards the muzzle. This is also why you see reverse-taper barrels (like the Benchmark) on a lot of benchrest rigs--to instill slight choke through the length of the barrel.
It's hard to see this barrel swell--and choke effect--on the many Anschutz match rifles as in any way disadvantageous. These match rifles have excelled in international rimfire matches for decades....
"The tendency of the bore dimensions of non-stress relieved buttoned barrels to expand on profiling the outside had been used by some manufactures to advantage. Barrels having bore dimensions that vary over the length can be made to shoot well if the muzzle end is the tightest part of the barrel. The bullet will then make a clean exit without gas leaking around the sides to destabilize it. When mass producing barrels it is then possible to allow a fair degree of variation in the bore and groove dimensions down the barrel, provided some choking at the muzzle is included in the manufacturing process. If the buttoned barrel blank is profiled so that the last inch or so at the muzzle end is left at a larger diameter than the rest of the barrel, the expansion of the bore dimensions will be least at the muzzle so leaving a slight choke. That is why the barrels on almost all .22 target rifles look the way they do." Geoffrey Kolbe, http://www.firearmsid.com/feature articles/rifledbarrelmanuf/barrelmanufacture.htm
Yes, I understand the concept behind this perfectly, I was just reading one barrel maker's method where they contoured before reaming and rifling, such that any expansion effect from the contouring is essentially nullified. Obviously, there are nine ways to skin a cat and other makers do things differently and achieve different results.
On one hand, this technique has the appearance of being a cheap trick to cover up flaws and sloppiness in your mass production method. On the other, it does improve performance, the muzzle should never be the loosest spot in the barrel. I will still maintain that "choke" at the muzzle aside, the barrel free of tight/loose spots from the breech to muzzle will outperform a barrel with such variations. Anschütz and comparable brands do a much better job of ensuring a consistent diameter than others, making a muzzle choke an added benefit to them rather than cover up for sloppy manufacturing.
Reverse taper seems to be done more so to make a barrel easier to tune, allowing it to have a flexion point near the action.
Yes, I understand the concept behind this perfectly, I was just reading one barrel maker's method where they contoured before reaming and rifling, such that any expansion effect from the contouring is essentially nullified. Obviously, there are nine ways to skin a cat and other makers do things differently and achieve different results.
On one hand, this technique has the appearance of being a cheap trick to cover up flaws and sloppiness in your mass production method. On the other, it does improve performance, the muzzle should never be the loosest spot in the barrel. I will still maintain that "choke" at the muzzle aside, the barrel free of tight/loose spots from the breech to muzzle will outperform a barrel with such variations. Anschütz and comparable brands do a much better job of ensuring a consistent diameter than others, making a muzzle choke an added benefit to them rather than cover up for sloppy manufacturing.
Reverse taper seems to be done more so to make a barrel easier to tune, allowing it to have a flexion point near the action.
Got Juice?
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Peoples Republik of Kanukkistan
I think this has been the most fun on CGN since I have been a member. Some very stimulating and educational rimfire threads. Great to share both knowledge and 'bench racing' with other enthusiasts.
Good stuff
Good stuff
I have an Anschutz MP R set up as a "tactical" trainer . The muzzle is flared and is grooved to accept a competition front sight . Even though my rifle is scoped , the added weight at the muzzle is a benefit as I believe it helps with barrel harmonics and reduces the tendency for vertical stringing . As a tactical trainer ( Mil reticle , mil turrets ) , the shooter can very quickly engage targets from 25 yards out well past 200 yards with extreme precision and is meant to be shot off a bipod . I believe the new rifle will accomplish this very nicely . My MP R shoots 5 shot groups at 50 yards off a bipod in the very low .300's and mid to high .200's . I suspect the new rifle will be similar . These rifles are so accurate that the shooter is by far the limiting factor . These are not bench rest rifles . Anyone that thinks that the rifle is holding them back , is dreaming . Just my opinion .
So... a non-benchrest rifle shoots .2's and .3's, but this physical accuracy limit of the equipment does not hold back a shooter? Couldn't the shooter be nailing .1's and .2's, if only their rifle was more accurate? Maybe I'm just dreaming
I have to agree with you. After watching Tom E Gun lay down a 25 shots challenge group with my MPR averaging .267 with Lapua X act. The MPR is very capable, I was the weak link trying to shoot it on the same day.
Everything is relative, I suppose. Depends on how you did on the accuracy lottery with your rifle, though I will say the Anschütz lottery is the best one to play. All I gotta do is point to my re-barreled XXII, and the massive improvement this change made. That dainty little sporter outshoots my 64 MSR with every ammo type. If accuracy were equal across all individual rifles, shouldn't I be getting better results with my MSR, since it should be "easier" to shoot off a bench?
So... a non-benchrest rifle shoots .2's and .3's, but this physical accuracy limit of the equipment does not hold back a shooter? Couldn't the shooter be nailing .1's and .2's, if only their rifle was more accurate? Maybe I'm just dreaming
You are dreaming.
As much as we'd like to believe that we might be infallible, the bottom line is that none of us ever are. And that includes shooting a rifle. The human factor is hardly irrelevant. Shooting .1's is never straightforward or easy.The point that I was trying to make ( perhaps unsuccessfully ) is that this rifle is being marketed at as tactical trainer . The role of a tactical trainer is to provide a similar shooting experience to that of a center fire tactical rifle , albeit at a shorter range and with much lower ammo costs . Set up correctly ( Mil reticle and mil turrets ) , the shooting experience is actually very similar . Now , whether this rifle is to your own personal liking or not , is up to the buyer . But , the accuracy should certainly not be an issue . Shooting this type of rifle successfully , the way it was intended to be shot ( bipod ) , not off a table top using a bench rest , really comes down to the shooter and reading the environmental conditions . The further the range , the more important this becomes . A tactical rifle and bench rifle are two very different animals . A bench rifle shooting "tactically" , simply does not work very well . Even though it might be capable of shooting in the .100's off the bench . They are tools designed for different needs . I suspect that this new rifle will work quite well and I stand by my statement that the shooter , not the rifle , will be the limiting factor . For those that want to buy a rifle like this and focus on shooting groups at 50 yards , honestly , you probably should have bought a different rifle .
