Wilson arms barrels, any good?
- Thread starter 1stmar
- Start date
Scorch says:
Note on Green Mountain's web site the state some barrels are "precision air gauged." Which means they measured their groove diameters. No mention whatsoever what the average diameter is nor what the tolerances are. Stay far away from such products so marketed.
Note the fact that Ruger used Green Mountain barrels in those 20 or so Palma rifles they made for the 1992 US Palma Team to use in the 1992 World Championships at Raton, NM's NRA Whittington Center Range. At a big match there in 1991, those rifles (and therefore, barrels) were tested with the handloaded ammo loaded for the 1992 match that shot about 1/2 MOA at 600 and 3/4 MOA at 1000 yards in members own personal rifles as well as a few dozen other Palma rifles from other countries. The Green Mountain 6-groove barrels shot about 1.5 MOA at 600 and 2.5 MOA at 1000. Those with 4-groove barrels shot about 25% better. The US Team members shot their own rifles. The NRA ended up storing those rifles at the Whittington Center and a year or so later sold them at auction. The were pretty good circus tent stakes.
Note on Green Mountain's web site the state some barrels are "precision air gauged." Which means they measured their groove diameters. No mention whatsoever what the average diameter is nor what the tolerances are. Stay far away from such products so marketed.
Bart B, Got a question. I posted link about those Ruger rifles for the Palma team that said they weren't test fired as they were finished too late but they shot few in the 1992 match rest were unfired.
I guess you being a team member and help unloading ammo at that match you shot those rifles or your fellow team member did right.
How many actual rifles were fired of the 20?
I guess you being a team member and help unloading ammo at that match you shot those rifles or your fellow team member did right.
How many actual rifles were fired of the 20?
Roper, I didn't make the 1992 team; two crossfires in the 1991 tryouts dropped me 20 points in the tryout aggregate; way too far down. My rifle made the team as a friend on the team had his rifle's trigger break so he borrowed mine.
But I did shoot the high score with that ammo loaded for the 1992 matches a year before across 4 days of 600 yard through 1000 yard matches restricted to using only that batch of ammo. I won the 600 and 1000 yard agg's and a guy from Australia won the Palma aggregate; beat him by 1 point for the overall agg.
All 20 rifles were tested in late 1991 by someone and again by the 1992 USA Palma Team Members in practice days before the individual matches that year. One shot about 1.5 MOA at 1000 and was used by one team member as his rifle aslo went south during the individual matches. The others were about 2 MOA rifles at 1000 yards; totally unsat for a Palma rifle, Members used their own rifles which shot that ammo about 3/4 MOA at 1000 which was very good.
But I did shoot the high score with that ammo loaded for the 1992 matches a year before across 4 days of 600 yard through 1000 yard matches restricted to using only that batch of ammo. I won the 600 and 1000 yard agg's and a guy from Australia won the Palma aggregate; beat him by 1 point for the overall agg.
All 20 rifles were tested in late 1991 by someone and again by the 1992 USA Palma Team Members in practice days before the individual matches that year. One shot about 1.5 MOA at 1000 and was used by one team member as his rifle aslo went south during the individual matches. The others were about 2 MOA rifles at 1000 yards; totally unsat for a Palma rifle, Members used their own rifles which shot that ammo about 3/4 MOA at 1000 which was very good.
Roper, yes he was on the 1988 Australia team.
We had a lot of fun using our Unertl 100mm team scopes at 24X watching the nude girls on Bondi Beach down the hill from the ANZAC rifle range near Sydney. Oh, sorry 'bout that; back to Palma rifles......
Yes, the Aussies won in 1988. No wonder as they changed ammo after the official samples they sent every country in 1987 was used to make chamber reamers for and shot so very well. That ammo they used shot almost as bad in the USA team rifles as the best of the Ruger Palma rifles I mentioned. The USA team new half way through the first practice day that ammo was much hotter and not near as accurate as the ammo our rifles were chambered for. It even had a different headstamp from the arsenal that made it. The USA and other country teams protested but 'twas to no avail. Some of that ammo was brought back, broken down and compared to the 1987 lot sent to us; it had different case weight, bullet diameter, and powder type as well as head-to-ogive length.
Shame on you, Australia. We think you learned how to fudge the rules from your 1983 racing yacht team who cheated to win the America's Cup some years before. Here's stories about it:
http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=19...=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=
We had a lot of fun using our Unertl 100mm team scopes at 24X watching the nude girls on Bondi Beach down the hill from the ANZAC rifle range near Sydney. Oh, sorry 'bout that; back to Palma rifles......
Yes, the Aussies won in 1988. No wonder as they changed ammo after the official samples they sent every country in 1987 was used to make chamber reamers for and shot so very well. That ammo they used shot almost as bad in the USA team rifles as the best of the Ruger Palma rifles I mentioned. The USA team new half way through the first practice day that ammo was much hotter and not near as accurate as the ammo our rifles were chambered for. It even had a different headstamp from the arsenal that made it. The USA and other country teams protested but 'twas to no avail. Some of that ammo was brought back, broken down and compared to the 1987 lot sent to us; it had different case weight, bullet diameter, and powder type as well as head-to-ogive length.
Shame on you, Australia. We think you learned how to fudge the rules from your 1983 racing yacht team who cheated to win the America's Cup some years before. Here's stories about it:
http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=19...=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=
Last edited:
Was thinking about this for 22-250.. Current barrel is 1:14 Hv...
Green mountain
.223 1:12 twist Stainless Barrel Blank, 27" long x 1.20" diameter, 416 Stainless Steel, button rifled, stress relieved, precision air gaged. Turned on center for concentricity .220 bore / .224 groove.
$139.00
Thoughts on the 1:12 or the barrel?
Green mountain
.223 1:12 twist Stainless Barrel Blank, 27" long x 1.20" diameter, 416 Stainless Steel, button rifled, stress relieved, precision air gaged. Turned on center for concentricity .220 bore / .224 groove.
$139.00
Thoughts on the 1:12 or the barrel?
Bart B, I also seen David Tubbs was member of 1988 Palma Team. I know nothing or read anything about the ammo used at the palma match but looking at the final score for the teams they were pretty close between 1st @ 3374-211v and 4th place 3332-183v that 42 point difference.
Brat B, I just read this about the 1988 Palma team care to comment
The first Palma match fired in Australia, in 1988, was a triumph for the home team and something close to a disaster for the United States. Finishing fourth is not a familiar location for United States Palma teams. The Anzac Rifle Range can not support a 900 meter (984 yard) firing line. As a result there was a deviation in the distance of the three stages shot. One stage was shot a 700 meters (765 yards) and two at 800 meters (874 yards). With occasional wind gusts strong enough to require 24 minutes of adjustment at 800 meters, and three rifles that had but 24 ½ minutes windage available, United States shooters would have to hold on a target upwind of the one assigned to them in order to strike the correct bull's-eye at 900 meters. While this circumstance is not unheard of, it is a situation that can easily turn into a can of worms.
The first Palma match fired in Australia, in 1988, was a triumph for the home team and something close to a disaster for the United States. Finishing fourth is not a familiar location for United States Palma teams. The Anzac Rifle Range can not support a 900 meter (984 yard) firing line. As a result there was a deviation in the distance of the three stages shot. One stage was shot a 700 meters (765 yards) and two at 800 meters (874 yards). With occasional wind gusts strong enough to require 24 minutes of adjustment at 800 meters, and three rifles that had but 24 ½ minutes windage available, United States shooters would have to hold on a target upwind of the one assigned to them in order to strike the correct bull's-eye at 900 meters. While this circumstance is not unheard of, it is a situation that can easily turn into a can of worms.
Roper, I now remember a few of those team members' sights that didn't have enough windage to allow that much correction. We had a few on the team who didn't quite understand the realities of 30 mph cross winds on a rifle range near the ocean.
That 1st place 3374-211v and 4th place 3332-183v scores are the difference between a 1.2 MOA rifle and ammo and a 1.8 MOA rifle and ammo between those two teams. Our coaches were as good as the Aussies and maybe a bit better in reading the wind. But we had too many shots far off call to make some of the wind changes exact.
I rode around Sydney that year with David Tubb and his Dad, George a time or two. Known 'em and shot with 'em both since the 1960's.
That 1st place 3374-211v and 4th place 3332-183v scores are the difference between a 1.2 MOA rifle and ammo and a 1.8 MOA rifle and ammo between those two teams. Our coaches were as good as the Aussies and maybe a bit better in reading the wind. But we had too many shots far off call to make some of the wind changes exact.
I rode around Sydney that year with David Tubb and his Dad, George a time or two. Known 'em and shot with 'em both since the 1960's.
Bart B, Your comments are puzzling
"Roper, I now remember a few of those team members' sights that didn't have enough windage to allow that much correction. We had a few on the team who didn't quite understand the realities of 30 mph cross winds on a rifle range near the ocean."
Isn't Palma a team effort and I'm surprise you be comment on team members and how others shot considering what you shot at that match which was next to lowest score shot.
"Roper, I now remember a few of those team members' sights that didn't have enough windage to allow that much correction. We had a few on the team who didn't quite understand the realities of 30 mph cross winds on a rifle range near the ocean."
Isn't Palma a team effort and I'm surprise you be comment on team members and how others shot considering what you shot at that match which was next to lowest score shot.
Old Roper,
You need to understand that wind often changes faster than you can hold a conference over it. In a class I took, Mid Tompkins said he sees no reason to have sight adjustments finer than half a minute for long range shooting, as the wind can change a quarter minute faster than you can adjust the sights to compensate. He told us he found it better to learn to watch for signs of those changes and hold off a quarter minute if that's needed.
On top of that, if you have four separate line coaches each responsible for helping four of the sixteen shooters on the line, a small discrepancy of opinion on wind value could develop that affects only the four firing points a particular coach is responsible for. Also, having a line coach that takes just a second longer to reach the same wind value that another does could affect the score of his four shooters. This may be a team effort on the score boards, but there are still a number of individual layers of judgment involved.
Take a look at this article and you will see some rifles in '88 only had 24.5 minutes of windage adjustment and already needed 24 minutes at 800. By Bryan Litz's formula, you could expect them to need about 27 minutes of windage at 1000 under those same conditions, which those 24.5 minute sights couldn't get to. So they had use the target upwind of their score target as their aiming center. That not only affects your shooting because the fellow to your right may fire and have his target pulled while you are still aiming, but that also makes it much easier for a momentary lapse of attention to result in a crossfire.
So there are a number of reasons one might be dropping points under those conditions. Add in the ammo shell game that was played on the visiting teams and you can see wind reading skill is only one of several. So please stop trying to needle Bart about it.
You need to understand that wind often changes faster than you can hold a conference over it. In a class I took, Mid Tompkins said he sees no reason to have sight adjustments finer than half a minute for long range shooting, as the wind can change a quarter minute faster than you can adjust the sights to compensate. He told us he found it better to learn to watch for signs of those changes and hold off a quarter minute if that's needed.
On top of that, if you have four separate line coaches each responsible for helping four of the sixteen shooters on the line, a small discrepancy of opinion on wind value could develop that affects only the four firing points a particular coach is responsible for. Also, having a line coach that takes just a second longer to reach the same wind value that another does could affect the score of his four shooters. This may be a team effort on the score boards, but there are still a number of individual layers of judgment involved.
Take a look at this article and you will see some rifles in '88 only had 24.5 minutes of windage adjustment and already needed 24 minutes at 800. By Bryan Litz's formula, you could expect them to need about 27 minutes of windage at 1000 under those same conditions, which those 24.5 minute sights couldn't get to. So they had use the target upwind of their score target as their aiming center. That not only affects your shooting because the fellow to your right may fire and have his target pulled while you are still aiming, but that also makes it much easier for a momentary lapse of attention to result in a crossfire.
So there are a number of reasons one might be dropping points under those conditions. Add in the ammo shell game that was played on the visiting teams and you can see wind reading skill is only one of several. So please stop trying to needle Bart about it.
Unclenick, I'm not needling Bart B if you read his post. this is what I was posting about
"We had a few on the team who didn't quite understand the realities of 30 mph cross winds on a rifle range near the ocean."
Why would anyone on a team complain about how others shot. Bart B did shoot next to lowest score that is public record. Those shooters he talked about can't defend what he's talking about is that fair of him to do that?
If Bart B has a problem with what I said he should say something old saying truth hurts was cheap shot on his part. If Bart still lives in Loveland I'm not afraid to say it to his face either.
"We had a few on the team who didn't quite understand the realities of 30 mph cross winds on a rifle range near the ocean."
Why would anyone on a team complain about how others shot. Bart B did shoot next to lowest score that is public record. Those shooters he talked about can't defend what he's talking about is that fair of him to do that?
If Bart B has a problem with what I said he should say something old saying truth hurts was cheap shot on his part. If Bart still lives in Loveland I'm not afraid to say it to his face either.
Last edited:
Roper, I wasn't complaining about how some team members shot. Just the rear sight they chose to use. My barrel shot that issue ammo not too good but it shot the Palma 92 ammo good enough in 1991 to produce the high 4-day agg. score in its first USA match with 155's. Sorry if that missed you. I was one who didn't have enough wind age on my own Redfield Palma rear sight; about 20 moa both ways from zero when I rebarreled my Palma rifle to shoot 148's in the Aussie ammo. But I knew the winds on that ANZAC range would be 35 mph plus, so I bought a Wilkes rear sight with 40 tpi threads and 40 moa of windage both sides of zero.
Mid Tompkins was also upset that some members had rear sights with 36 tpi lead screws instead of the standard 40 tpi ones. Those 4 had to be resquadded under the same coach so their adjustments would all move impact the same amount for a given change. This issue was resolved for the 1992 team.
Last edited:
Roper, I thought it did. But go ahead and pick on me to your hearts content. None of the other team members minded commenting about those few with insufficient sight windage adjustments. And those who did claimed ignorance and admitted it was their fault.
Wanna know who on the team was picked on the most?
He was also the guy who had a track record of cheating at big matches (including the Nationsls) and getting away with it with Machevellian methods. Also, was the only team member who refused to show up for social events and the team pictures.
Wanna know who on the team was picked on the most?
He was also the guy who had a track record of cheating at big matches (including the Nationsls) and getting away with it with Machevellian methods. Also, was the only team member who refused to show up for social events and the team pictures.