The death of the Co-Pilot

Ivanhoe,

I see what you mean about the enclosed receiver not being an answer to he controlled feeding probleum. Perhaps it would mininimize it some since concievably it might tend to bounce the nose back into alignment - certainly not a perfect solution though.
I like your idea about the weaver rail. Since the rifle will have a scout scope anyway, why not use the rail as the scope attachment and then in case of scope damage or if you just want to get in close in the alders and pull the scope off, you've already got your straight sight plane and a bright bead for close in work already attached - I think you can count on your idea becoming part of the final package - I thank you for the idea.
Now for caliber. - Assuming we use the BPR (I still need some feedback and some handling of this rifle to make that decision) we can go with standard length cartridges. Somebody (and my weak mind fails me as too who) has come out with a standard length .30 caliber something like the .300 mag but with extra steam. A premium .250 grain bullet with a lot of horsepower behind it should be a more than adequate bear stopper - a lighter bullet should give someone all the long range on medium game you could ask for.
But who makes this new standard length .30?

Oh, the BP already comes in .300 mag so it would save a lot of money to the final buyer to simply ream out the chamber to this hotter .30 - we could still rebarrel for .338 or something but the average guy should feel well protecte with a high velocity 250 grain .308 - wouldn't you think?
 
Keith, the way I see it a closed receiver
has a disadvantage if its not controlled
feed; if a cartridge or case gets loose
in there, you can't just shake it out.
sort of analogous to the closed vs. open
slide on autopistols; closed keeps crud
out but cases in. its pretty hard to
improve on existing firearms designs;
Mauser, Browning et al shot all the
sitting ducks! no easy problems left.

off and on over the past
decade I've thought about "The Ultimate
Autopistol" but every improvement has
a drawback or two. I've only identified
a few changes to current technology that
give a net gain. by the time I'm done
we'll all be carrying laserpistols anyway.

concerning cartridges, check out the
following;
http://www.z-hat.com/HawkWildcats.htm
also I believe that there are two more
families of wildcats, from Imperial
Cartridge (Canadian I think) and
from Dakota Arms. both are larger diameter
rimless or beltless cases based on the
old Rigby case or something similar I
believe.

as for caliber (as opposed to cartridge),
there's the obvious tradeoff between
bullet weight and recoil, but I guess you
can safely assume that the target customer
for this project is not a newbie. I did
some web-surfing around to look at
premium bullets, and the selection for
.338 is a lot better than for .358. I
wonder if the guy who's done the Hawk
wildcats could be coerced into developing
a ".338 Short Hawk" based on the .308
case (and thus fitting into a short-action
BLR)? sounds like fun, but it may just
be easier to retrofit a shortie BLR to
handle belted magnums and use the .350
Rem Mag. I dunno about others, but if I'm
going to have a long action gun it might
as well be chambered for .338 WM. ammo
everywhere, plenty of premium bullets,
wide range of applications, etc. if I had
a choice between .300 mag and a .338/06
or .35 Whelen, I'd tend to go with the
larger calibers because of bullet toughness
and selection.

but I haven't seen a really thorough study
of what the optimum bullet weight/velocity
ratio is, for a given cartridge. most
gunwriters seem to favor weight over
velocity, but a common slam against the
.458WM is that it doesn't have enough
velocity for that much frontal area.
the African hunting crowd seems to have
settled on the heaviest bullet that can
be pushed to 2200-2500fps at the muzzle,
which would imply for these cartridges
in the .30-35 range that the heaviest
possible bullets should be used in a given
case (.35 Whelen pushing a 250gr bullet
to 2500fps according to one table).
 
Well,

I agree that a larger bore size is a better solution. The BPR is not offered in a larger cartridge than .300 mag though. For me, at my income level, I'd simply choose the .300 mag and load with heavier bullets - the initial prototype probably will be in a .338 or .35 of some persuasion.
The cost of rebarreling will raise the price at least $300.
I could swear though that Federal or Winchester - one of the major players is releasing a hotter .30 than the .300 mag. A .30 with a heavy premium bullet like the partition at high velocities would be a formidable long range game getter and a very good short range bear stopper. And its much cheaper to ream out a chamber that it is to rebarrel. If you have the money, the .338 would probably be the best choice.
The big objection to the BLR was the difficulty of getting the .350 Rem MAg - It would be nice to offer the rifle in a round thats readily available.
If you fly into Alaska for a hunt and your ammo gets misdirected to Timbuktu it would be nice to pop into the nearest store and by ammo.

------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
This appears nearly undoable, but given the criteria I think your best solution lies with a long action Browning lever or pump. Then you can neck up a .338 Winchester to .375. The big catch is combining bear stopping with long range. For the bear stopping I think you better go to .375 diameter at least. I agree with you in staying away from a bolt action. From a practical perspective anyone going to a bolt action can just buy a .375 H&H, .416 or .458 and cut it down if they don't think it is handy enough. If you stick to short actions, ie the .350 case, you limit both power and trajectory.
 
Keith. I see AC mentioned a .338 Mag necked up to .375. I have a Ruger 77 in that very cartridge, so I can say a little bit about it. The rifle, with 22 inch barrel weighs 7 pounds with scope. It is mounted in a Ramline synthetic stock. It is still in the original blue, but I'm considering sending it to Robar in Phoenix to have a weatherproof finish put on. I'm still trying to determine which load is best, but I have duplicated .375 H&H in a standard length action with both trhe 270 gr. and 300 gr. bullets. Recoil appears to be about 1/3 less than My Ruger #1 .375 H&H. I attribute that to the synthetic stock, in part. Partly because less powder is used too.
I still have to put iron sights on it, but that can come later, after I have determined the best load. I also plan on going to a 2.5 to 3 power scope instead of the 3x9 I'm using for testing.
Making the brass can be done in several ways, but the easiest is just necking down .458 Win. Mag brass.
Just another option to look at and consider.
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
hey, Paul B.;
is there a cartridge designation for that
".375-338"? I've been wondering why
somebody hasn't done that already.

do you know of others that have this wildcat?
 
There are several names for this cartridge. In P.O. Ackely's book HANDBOOK FOR SHOOTERS AND RELOADERS, VOL. II, it is called the 375/338 Chatfield-Taylor (.375 Belted Newton), In RIFLE magazine, a form of it is called the .375 Epstein, and in Handloader Magazine, just the .375x338 Magnum.
Ackely says, "It is simply the .338 necked to .375 H&H and it is a much more modern and efficient cartridge than the original .375 H&H and is much better adapted for use in standard actions than the extremely long .375 H&H which often require excessive action alteration."
A word about the Epstein version. He used .375 H&H brass to get a longer neck for his cartridge. Loading data is identical, for all practical purposes.
You are right about one thing. How come the factories haven't adopted this one?
I was at the range a while back, trying some new loads, when a guys asked it he could try it out. I told him it did kick a bit, and he said he had a .458 Mag. I let him shoot itand he hit a metal pig target at 100 yards. The target went flying about ten feet or so. His quote,"That damn thing hits like a sledge hammer." I named the rifle, "The Hammer." Never named a gun before, on this one it fits.
On my chronograph, it duplicates factory .375 H&H loads with apparent recoil feeling about one third less. No muzzle brake, no Magnaporting. When I do my part I can get groups of an inch and a quarter. I even got a few one inchers, but that is not the norm.
I'm hoping to draw an elk tag this year to see how it works on game.
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
That sounds like a great cartridge! Have you shot it at long range?
One of the things I want this rifle to do is be a decent long (OK, medium) range rifle capable of taking deer/caribou sized game out to 300 yards without any holdover.



------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Keith. Using Hornady bullets, the 270 gr. spire point .375 bullet with a 200 yd. zero drops about 9.6 inches at 300 yd. This is based on a velocity of 2660 fps.
With the .300 gr. spitzer boattail at 2550 fps, about 9.5 inch drop at 300yd.
As I am still working up loads with different powders, I still have not tried out the long range possibilities yet.
I would think that as with the .375 H&H, any shot you would try, distancewise, with a 30-06, you can try with the .375 H&H. If that is the case, the the .375x338 will do the same.
If I draw an elk tag this year, and if I should see one, and get lucky enough to shoot him, I'll let you know.
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top