OzFclass

I seem to recall Ken Melgaard doing something like that at Bendigo a year or three back.

Barry Davies wrote:the 223 of Peter Kelly outshot all the competition, all heavier, some faster, and we know the 223 is inferior don't we?
Barry

Indeed we do Barry, however perhaps someone should tell the 223's that they are not supposed to be outshooting all the competition, including Open rifle on a fairly regular basis.

Lynn Otto wrote:

Barry Davies wrote:the 223 of Peter Kelly outshot all the competition, all heavier, some faster, and we know the 223 is inferior don't we?
Barry

Indeed we do Barry, however perhaps someone should tell the 223's that they are not supposed to be outshooting all the competition, including Open rifle on a fairly regular basis.

Lynn, going from personal experience both coaching and shooting 223's: on rough days they have major issues with elevation at long range.

If they were superior, the top international teams in TR and FC would be using them. A few successes here and there do not provide evidence of superior performance.

What do you mean by "regular basis"?

Rod, see the smiley at the end of that line, like the one on Barry's comment, it was meant in good humour and Barry, being the person it was addressed to, would have known what I meant. That said, a well set up 223 with the right person behind it (not me by the way ), can often hold it's own with the Open rifles, but no one is saying they don't have their short comings. They are after all just a humble little rat gun.

Rat gun? Since when was it upgraded from mouse gun status?

Sorry to take this off topic but can you tell me what is the" Carbon Concept Rifle" I've clicked on the web page numerous times but I'm still know the wiser.

Regards
john

flatlina wrote:Sorry to take this off topic but can you tell me what is the" Carbon Concept Rifle" I've clicked on the web page numerous times but I'm still know the wiser.

Regards
john

It is a work in progress - the action part has been designed, but still needs some work. The short version is it is a carbon fibre bodied action (or rifle) that has a steel insert, but no steel body as such. Nothing new in the idea, I will just being going about it very differently.

The main advantage is weight minimisation: there are more advantages that are based around ergonomic considerations, rather than historical ones.

When I get a few minutes, I will start a thread explaining my thoughts on the subject.

I cant see how weight minimisation could be seen as much of an advantage unless your target market is F/TR, Building a rifle up to weight would be my first consideration in shooting a discipline such as F open and F standard. A light action would lead to a very unbalanced rifle with the addition of a heavy barrel and much work needed to the stock butt to restore balance.

Tell us why a super light action is such a great innovation and what advantage is to be gained.

woody,
it sounds a bit like the stolle concept.
keep safe,
bruce.

And there is nothing wrong with Stolles

danny,
and also the stiller python.
keep safe,
bruce.

Just guessing at what Rod might be doing - a recent trend with target stocks is towards very long fore-ends. This affectively transfers weight away from the front rest and onto the rear, so you can have a heavier longer barrel, and lighter stock at the butt end.

Using carbon fibre, a long and very stiff fore-end would be achievable.

Alan

Gee Alan, if we keep extending the forend, we could end up back with a full wood. 303

DannyS wrote:Gee Alan, if we keep extending the forend, we could end up back with a full wood. 303

With rear locking lugs!

On a more serious note Alan, I did notice that when Vince Bottomley of the UK Target Shooter Mag, built his ultimate F/TR rifle, he used a Stolle Panda F Class action and a stock with a very long forend to balance the weight.

Cheers
Danny