Ignorance comsumes me

This is a very good explanation of controller round feed verse push feed. I like the link because it includes some video snippets which make understanding easier. We like pictures!

Two of my better shooting rifles are a .223 Remington and a .308 Winchester and both are older Remington 700 series guns I have worked up. What I would like today is a CZ in those calibers. I like the CZ 527 rifles because they are based on the Mauser action with controlled round feed.

Which is really better? I really do not think it matters in a well made rifle that is fitted well and trued. Many will argue CRF is the better, I just do not see the difference at the targets.

Ron

If hand loading appeals to you, have you tried your hand at bullet casting? If you have, and you like it, how about a CZ in 7.62x39. Get great accuracy and it really is fun.

At 200 yards you can turn in some fantastic groups.

I'm not an expert on action types, won't be able to help you there.

As for the barrel, if you go with .223 Rem you'll want something in the 1:9 to 1:7 twist range. This will let you shoot the heavy bullets that have a higher ballistic coefficient.

That said, if you're talking about 200 yards, it won't matter much. Even a 1:12 twist shooting light bullets would do just fine at 200 I would think... I've shot my 1:12 twist .223 out to 550 yards with 55gr bullets. I do wish it was a 1:9 though...

As far as length goes, again if you're just shooting at 200 it won't matter much. Even a 16 incher should be just fine. Heck it might even be better my experience as been that short barrels are a little more accurate than longer barrels (due to reduced "whip" effect I believe). If you are shooting at longer distance however you might want a longer barrel to get better velocity...

Stock should probably be polymer or laminate (I like laminate it is more pretty), regular wood will swell if it gets damp and change where you bullet impacts.

Only thing I can suggest on the glass, is that you might want to match your reticle with your turrets. For some reason there are a ton of scopes out there with mil reticles but the turret clicks are measured in 1/4 MOA... You want one that is mil/mil or moa/moa, not some weird mix/hybrid

Hope this helps. Others probably have more detailed/helpful advice

Epicurean said:

So can you guys educate me? First, what is the differance between controlled round feed and push feed and does that make any difference in what I want to do?

Click to expand...

It makes no difference for what you're doing. It can make a difference on dangerous game rifles, where a CRF rifle can feed and eject in some very specific circumstances where a PF might have problems.

Are there advantages to a Mauser action (I'm thinking CZ here)?

Click to expand...

Those are nice actions, but you'd have to have a point of comparison before we could talk about advantages. In general CRF actions have a bigger following for hunting than for target shooting.

Are there any other mechanical aspects that come into play. Twist - do heavy bullets help that much?

Click to expand...

Heavy bullets have applications for hunting (better penetration) and for long range shooting (better ballistic coefficient). Punching paper at short range, they have no advantages although a given bullet may happen to be what your rifle likes.

Barrel length?

Click to expand...

There is a small velocity difference, with longer barrels being faster. Punching paper at short range, it makes no difference.

Stocks?

Click to expand...

Having a stock that fits you and the optic you're using is a big deal. Length of pull isn't as critical on the bench as it is in the field, but in either case you want the comb to be the right height to put you behind the optic. You want a cheek weld, not a jaw weld or sideburn weld.

Glass?

Click to expand...

Matters up to a point, but moreso at long distance or in optically challenging conditions (twilight etc.). You do want a nice enough scope that it holds zero, has repeatable and correctly calibrated adjustments, and can survive the recoil of the gun you're shooting. This generally puts you into scopes that cost a minimum of a couple of hundred dollars - for example, any non-rimfire Leupold scope should meet those minimum requirements.

Epicurean,
My situation evolved much like yours did. I'v always had a familial tremor so I shied away from pistols. I've always had a .22 rifle to shoot squirrels and assorted pests, but never had a centerfire. So, I gravitated to shotguns and bird hunting. In addition to the tremor I have fairly severe foot and ankle problems that eventually resulted in the inability to walk rugged terrain in search of pheasants and quail. Good fortune smiled on me, however, when I happened upon an invitation to shoot prairie dogs. That started me on the path of several centerfire rifles and reloading. I retired on the last day of 2012, which helped me have the time to get reasonable proficient at long distance shooting and reloading. So...advice?? Your plan to start with a .223 is good. Ammo is plentiful and not that expensive. There is every conceivable configuration in .223. So you can experiment to see what you like. Since your stated goal is to shoot paper at no more than 200 yards, many, many guns can fill that need easily. I have a Remington 700 VSF (Varmint Synthetic Fluted) .223 with a 26" fluted barrel. The weight, shooting off sand bags from the bench, makes it easy to hold steady, even for a shaky guy like me. It is very accurate, routinely producing <.5" groups at 100 yards with my hand loads. I replaced the trigger with a Shilen, but otherwise did nothing except load good ammo. CZ makes great rimfires, but I prefer other brands for centerfires. Oops....just noticed the time. Gotta run. Ask more questions. We here at THR are always glad to help.

For your stated use, feed type is irrelavent. Controlled feed is advantageous in combat and dangerous game hunting, merely a plus for target, no real advantage there.

For 223- Twist rates and bullet weights, volumes can (and have) been written about it. My personal experience has been that 1:9 is a good all-around rate for most bullets. With the lightest bullets, 1:12 is best, the heaviest , 1:7. I stick to 1:9 because I prefer 55 and 62 gr loads, but it will still shoot 40 and 50 gr. acceptably at those distances. (I load for deer and varmint.)

I use a stock Axis, and have a Barska 4-12x56 on it, for now. I already had the scope. I plan on putting better glass on it soon, probably Leupold.

'm assuming fit is not so much a matter of geometry but shouldering various rifles to see what feels right? Glass is where I really need help. Is AO a big help on a range? Does magnification need to be sufficient to see holes or is a spotting scope a better idea? What would be the preferred reticle?

Another question has come to mind. Does a bull barrel make a difference?

Click to expand...

I'll try to help you some here. My experience comes from High Power Metallic Rifle Silhouette competition. I am not an expert as I have only been shooting HPMRS for a little over 3 years now.
Yes. Pick up, hold, caress and shoulder as many different mfrs and models as you can. The aesthetics of the various makes and models will probably have an impact on you, too. FWIW, I have two HPMRS guns. One is a Tikka T3 Lite with plastic stock in .270 Win. that will shoot 2-3/4" five round groups at 500 meters. The other is a Tikka T3 Hunter in a wood stock chambered for 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser. It shoots slightly better groups at 500 meters than the .270. Both rifles wear Vortex 6.5-20x50 w/side focus Viper scopes. For the money, the Vortex scopes are hard to beat. The turret detents are crisp, solid and repeatable. They track wonderfully and can always be returned to zero. Also, once you have your rifle zeroed, setting the turrets to zero is as simple as lifting the turret against its spring, rotating it to zero and releasing it back onto the detents. There are many more manufacturers of good scopes out there besides Vortex, Leupold, Zeiss, Unertl, ad infinitum. My advice is to not go cheap on your scope and/or rings.

AO? Yes and no. Some type of focus / parallax adjustment is going to be critical if you are going to shoot prairie poodles. I personally prefer the side focus. Because the HPMRS course of fire requires 4 different ranges (200m, 300m, 385m, 500m) being able to correct the parallax is very important. The side focus scopes are much easier for me. You might prefer the adjustable objective, though. You really need to try both before you decide.

Magnification depends on what you want to do.
When I have a new rifle to work up loads for, I generally mount my Weaver 36x target scope just so I can see exactly how steady I am holding the target picture - and my 100 yard load work-up target is a 1/4" black square that I aim for the lower right corner of. (Exactly where the bullets land are not important as long as they are on the paper and do not destroy my aiming point.) Once I have settled on a load, my preferred scope is 6.5-20 for HPMRS and something along the line of a 4-16 Weaver, 4.5-15.5 Nikon or 6-24 Konus. (Here's a 4.5-16 30mm tube Konus I want to try someday: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/98...adjustments-illuminated-mil-dot-reticle-matte) I prefer the 30mm tube over the 1" tube because they are noticeably brighter and I will splurge for that when I have the $ to spend and when they are on sale. For the most part, if I want to see the bullet holes at 200m and farther, I rely on a good spotting scope. Mid range priced Konus, Leupold, Zeiss etc. are the minimum (IMHO) for a spotting scope. I believe you should spend more on a spotting scope than you do for your best rifle scope. You will use it more and there is little that is more frustrating than not being able to see your target clearly through a spotting scope. Mine is a mid-range priced Burris and I cannot recommend it. (I intend to replace it someday, but there are more immediate financial concerns that must be addressed first.)
Reticles are a personal thing and dependent on the specific task. My HPMRS scopes are calibrated in MOA and have stadia marks in each direction. My shooting partner prefers a fine crosshair with a target dot. My advice is to look through a lot of scopes at your local Cabela's, Bass Pro or Sportsman's Warehouse and buy whatever reticle feels right to you.

There is really no substitute for a good quality rifle scope. I believe a guy should buy as much scope as he can afford plus 20%. If that means save for a little while before buying, then so be it. I have several scopes I could do without and will replace someday.

Bull barrels are a whole 'nother subject. By an d large, judging from the shooting you have described, bull barrel is better (stiffer) and shorter is 'more stiffer'. From here I will defer to the more knowledgeable than I.

I hope this is helpful.

For your uses a 223 bolt gun would be a good choice. I'd look for something with a 1:8 twist barrel to be able to use heavier target bullets. Lots of good options to meet most any budget.

For what you want to do you don't need CRF, but other than price there are no downsides either. On a big game rifle to be used in harsh dirty conditions or when hunting dangerous game I'd much prefer CRF.

The REAL advantage of CRF is that it is a more rugged, reliable system that will still work when the rifle is filthy or has been abused. It was designed to work on muddy battlefields of WW-1 and earned a reputation for being more reliable than other designs.

The average hunter today will never subject their rifle to conditions harsh enough for it to matter. For target shooting it is simply a non-factor that only increases the rifles cost.

The fact that the extractor grips the rim of the cartridge as soon as it pops out of the magazine is really a secondary advantage that is rarely a factor in the real world. Yet is the one thing people cite 1st because of the name "controlled round feeding". A PF rifle will feed rounds into the chamber just as reliable as a CRF. As long as everything is working properly and the rifle is fairly clean it will eject just as reliable. Where CRF comes into play is extracting and ejecting when things go bad or if the rifle and or ammo is filthy. It is extracting and ejecting where CRF works better, not feeding.

Epicurean said:

David, I'm limited to 200 yds since the longest DNR range in upstate SC is 200. I'd love to shoot longer distances but clubs are costly.

Click to expand...

In that area, Polk County Gun Club has monthly benchrest and f-class matches open to the public on their 300 yd range.

Epicurean said:

Bob, thanks for putting things in persective. Sounds like the only details I need to sweat are fit and glass. I'm assuming fit is not so much a matter of geometry but shouldering various rifles to see what feels right? Glass is where I really need help. Is AO a big help on a range? Does magnification need to be sufficient to see holes or is a spotting scope a better idea? What would be the preferred reticle?

Another question has come to mind. Does a bull barrel make a difference?

Click to expand...

Part of it is what feels right. Depending on what positions you want to shoot from, the whole stock/scope/rings/bases setup needs some consideration. The most restrictive position is generally slung prone. It's very easy to create a rifle where you can't really shoot in that position either because length of pull is wrong, or you can't get into the eyebox of the scope and maintain a proper turkey neck and cheek weld. Typically the scope ends up being too high and too far back, although it totally depends on your equipment. Generally if you get slung prone working then bipod prone, sitting, standing, and bench will fall into place.

I prefer a hash or mildot reticle with the reticle matching the adjustments on the scope (sometimes referred to as mil/mil scopes or MOA/MOA scopes). What you don't want is for example a scope with a mil reticle and MOA turrets. Front focal plan vs. 2nd focal plane reticles is personal preference, but I tend to use FFP.

Bull barrels can help some with accuracy, because the decrease the vibration of the barrel during the shot, which makes the barrel less sensitive to load timing - that is, a wider range of powder charges and exit velocities will give you acceptable groups. Bull barrels also handle heat better, although they're far from the only factor that impacts accuracy when warm (how true the action is matters too).

jmr40 said:

Where CRF comes into play is extracting and ejecting when things go bad or if the rifle and or ammo is filthy. It is extracting and ejecting where CRF works better, not feeding.

Click to expand...

There is also sometimes a feed advantage when feeding while swinging the gun or with the gun not vertical. in a CRF gun you're depending on the feed lips and magazine spring force to hold on to the rounds in those situation, and remember your cartridge went in through the feeds lips (assuming you're not using certain removable mags with tight lips) so it can go out the same way and since nothing's left holding it at all at that point the round can continue on out the ejection port. Awkward when there happens to be a Cape buffalo.

CRF helps feeding and extraction and typically has more pleasant, controllable ejection. None of these are particularly helpful to a target shooter, but none are harmful.

Re barrel length: http://www.angelfire.com/ma3/max357/houston.html

Guys shooting groups down around 0.1" or thereabouts probably have a pretty good handle on "what's what".

David, I'm limited to 200 yds

Click to expand...

Bummer. But maybe plan on setting up your rifle to shoot farther than that, just in case your situation changes. You never know you might be shooting at 500 yards in a year or two...

My personal experience has been that 1:9 is a good all-around rate for most bullets.

Click to expand...

I have a couple .223 rifles, some are 1:9 and some are 1:12, I've had better luck with the 1:9 rifles. I mainly shoot 55gr bullets

What brand scopes offer the mil/mil moa/moa combinations?

Click to expand...

There should be a bunch, you just have to look at the product specs carefully. I'm thinking about buying one of these as my next scope:

http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-16x42-Tactical-Riflescope-P53715.aspx

One other thing to watch out for on scopes, is the tube diameter. Some are 1 inch, and some are 30mm, so depending on what you get, you might need a different sized ring to mount it to the rifle.

If I was looking to get a new .223 bolt gun I'd consider something like this:

http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/25LVT

It's got a Laminate stock and a 1:9 twist barrel. I've never owned a savage but I have heard really good things about the trigger. Combine this rifle with a good scope and it should be good to at least 500 yards I would think... so 200 should be easy...

Art Eatman said:

Guys shooting groups down around 0.1" or thereabouts probably have a pretty good handle on "what's what".

Click to expand...

And absolutely no useful information for those shooting under actual conditions. But then again I think the benchrest game is rather deserving of ridicule myself.

Llama Bob, whether sighting in, hunting or competing, don't we all prefer a windless situation? The point of the article is about barrel length, which is a part of the questioning by the OP.

Art Eatman said:

Llama Bob, whether sighting in, hunting or competing, don't we all prefer a windless situation? The point of the article is about barrel length, which is a part of the questioning by the OP.

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose people can read the article for themselves and see if they think it has any useful information for a practical shooter. When I start reading about magic mirage-removing fans, my eyes glaze over.

As to their assertion that 21 3/4 inches is a special secret barrel length, I'd like to see some evidence. Most studies that have repeatedly cut down barrels show they become more accurate (albeit not perfectly consistently) as they get shorter, which makes sense since the stiffness of a beam or barrel decreases as the cube of the length. So if you cut a barrel from say 20" to 19", you've decreased the length by 5% but the stiffness should go up by something close to 15%.