Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 73 of 73

Thread: Documented results from replacing the 12 FV factory stock with an Oryx Chassis

  1. #51
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    802

    hamiltonkiler,

    Very good question.

    The Mar 16 session result with the 77 TMKs is probably the effect of shooter induced variation for this test.
    I find that for any session, there is usually one load that is an outlier.
    I just don't maintain concentration like I used to.
    Actually, the long term results with all powders show that the TMKs have a slight edge (0.006 on average) but there are a lot more groups shot with the 77 TMKs than the SMKs.
    Also, note that the 77 grain bullets (combined SMK & TMK) have a better long term average than the 69 grain bullets and that the 69 SMKs and TMKs perform almost identically.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	12 FV .223 Oryx Sierra Summary.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	28.4 KB 
ID:	7006
    Considering the standard deviations from 0.052 to 0.070, the TMKs are the more consistent bullet. but the

    When you look at powder bullet combinations, the results vary some, but the overall results are still pretty darn good.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	12 FV .223 Oryx Sierra Summary by powder.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	41.1 KB 
ID:	7007
    Note that the best loads with both the 77 SMKs and 77 TMKs with IMR4166 powder are identical and 0.002 better than the best average load 77 SMK using N140 powder. With this small a sample and such similar results, one or possibly two groups that were out of the norm could effect the results.

    For the 69 grain bullets, the best load (0.248) is also shared by a 69 TMK and 69 SMK, but the best powder bullet average is with the 69 SMK using N140 powder is 0.006 better than the best TMK average using IMR4166 powder and 0.008 better than a TMK using N140 powder.
    The N140 77 grain TMK overall average is the result of the Mar 16 data. The average for 77 TMKs with N140 powder was 0.293 prior to the March 16th session that made drove up the average to 0.302.

  2. #52
    Basic Member hamiltonkiler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Central NC
    Age
    37
    Posts
    456

    Documented results from replacing the 12 FV factory stock with an Oryx Chassis

    Awesome time and work you put in to provide this awesome information and confirmation.
    If it means anything to anyone. Not only are they all super accurate at 100yds/m how ever your set up. The 77gn smk or tmk put more rounds on target out of a semi-gun at distance than any other bullet in the world.
    US special forces use the round for a reason.
    Pew pew

    Great work CF
    Cheers

  3. #53
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northern MN
    Age
    72
    Posts
    673
    Lot of reading & digesting in this thread.
    The old saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words", would definitely apply here!...lol
    Pictures of the actual targets would have been nice.

  4. #54
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    802
    I know some people may be impressed by a picture of a single target as the basis of a claim of accuracy.
    Unfortunately, it takes more than a quick scan to learn anything and it takes more than shooting one group to improve your shooting technique.
    Think about how many target pictures I would have to show from just one session or from the year of shooting that made up the table in post #51.
    There are 471 groups summarized on that table in post #51.
    Even those who are picture fanatics would be bored by that number of pictures.
    Fortunately, a summary like that in post #51 shows the relative performance recorded for one particular rifle in the hands of one shooter.
    Unfortunately, the results might be different for a different rifle of the same nomenclature in the hands of the same shooter and almost guaranteed different in the hands of a different shooter using the original rifle.

    IMO, one target picture means nothing and is worthless to make any conclusions.
    Basing an 'accuracy boast' on one 'best' target picture will just mislead the readers because all the other groups shot are not considered.
    One target also doesn't say anything about the accuracy of the rifle or the capability of the shooter.
    Only a statistically valid number of groups allows conclusions about a bullet, powder, and rifle.

    As you can see from the data I post, I base my conclusions on at least tens of groups.
    If I find a powder-bullet combination that really works, the number of groups could be in the hundreds because I really like to shoot small groups and concentrate my shooting on combinations that work.

  5. #55
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northern MN
    Age
    72
    Posts
    673
    471 groups will be plenty to look at while most of us are in lockdown! .... lol...along with the data would be a great way to pass the time.
    Nice test though.

  6. #56
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    802
    Given that we're all marooned during the lockdown, I guess it would.
    But I'm not sure any 'Team Savage' subscription level would give me enough storage to post all those pictures.
    I'm already pushing my limits as it is.
    It's a good thought in the right frame of mind, though.

  7. #57
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    poughkeepsie new york
    Age
    72
    Posts
    80
    Hi CF....i was wondering if you have tried n540 in any of your trials ???? Also if you could share your case prep and loading procedure.......thanks and Be Safe

  8. #58
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    802
    i haven't tried N540, probably because N140 worked so well for me in my .308s and my .223s that I always bought it in 8 lb jugs. Early on, I tried N150 in my .30-06 and .270 long actions and in my 6.5mm CMs but I never bothered to try N540 for some reason.

    As for case prep:
    I always deprime with a Lee universal deprimer die on a separate press to keep my resizing dies clean and then tumble the brass with steel pins using Dawn and Lemishine.
    Then I lube the brass and full resize.
    I tumble again with a small bit of Dawn and dishwasher rinse solution - I find the rinse solution cleans off the soap scum and brightens the brass when dried.
    I dry the brass in a dehumidifier then sort it by sized 'base to neck length' (trim length) so any group will have about the same trim length..
    I try to avoid trimming if I can. I am not a zealot to achieve an exact trim length because I can adjust for it to get the velocity I want by adjusting seating depth (see below).

    I calculate the average trim length for each load of 25 rounds based upon the average of the 25 brass.

    Then I swag the inside and outside of each brass to eliminate any burrs so the seating die doesn't hang up and each pull of the press will feel just about the same.

    As to loading procedure:
    Given that I have sorted the brass and swaged and primed it, I choose a powder and charge for each load to get the exit time of each round to match the reflection of the barrel steel for each rifle.
    I use QuickLOAD software for all my load charge calculations and adjust for temperature if I am using a temperature sensitive powder.
    I consider the temperature based upon an hourly forecast for the range I am shooting at and adjust each load for the closest hourly temperature based upon my knowledge of my rate of fire. I'm usually within 2 deg. F. unless a front comes through or I get interrupted.
    I choose an even reflection to get the shock wave at the chamber instead of at or near the muzzle.
    That eliminates harmonics at the muzzle and keeps the crown as tight as it will ever be.
    For this 12 FV 26-inch Savage factory barrel used in this thread, the 12th reflection is 1.361 msec. when using the 77 grain bullets. With certain powders, I can use the 10th reflection 1.134 msec. if I stay with 69 grain bullets. With bullets under 60 grains, I use the 1.134 msec. 10th reflection.
    I choose the nearest reflection that keeps the charge under the Pmax for this .223 cartridge, the specific powder and the bullet weight.

    Since seating depth length increments of 0.002 increases the exit time by 0.001 msec. and a reduction of trim length does the same, I balance any differences in trim length after sorting with adjusting the seating depth.
    I set my dies to achieve a jump of around 0.020 inches for most rifles, definitely for this one. Then when I get the powder and charge near the required exit time, I adjust the seating depth a bit to get an exact exit time to match the reflection I have chosen.

    I measure all my rounds from case base to ogive to eliminate any tip variations (most HPBT match bullets have more variation than the tipped bullets).
    I usually get a load set of 25 rounds to vary about +/- 0.001 CBTO but when I have a really good day, I can get the entire 25 rounds in a load within 0.001 total.
    I sort the rounds in a load from smallest to largest so any group has the minimal amount of variation in jump from first to last round fired.

    I hope that gives you an idea of how I load.

  9. #59
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northern MN
    Age
    72
    Posts
    673
    After reading both threads from start to finish i finally re-read theh title. My thoughts were this was a comparison test of the factory stock to the Oryx. My bad. Finally realized the dates didn't match and you were not switching stocks during each session. So there is no apples to apples comparison here.
    Interesting read though.

  10. #60
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    802
    Sorry, many of the readers were following my two other threads - one for each rifle with the factory stock - on the Ammunition and Reloading forum.

    The thread for the 12 FV .223 is:
    First results with new 12 FV .223

    A related thread for this rifle is:
    Will 77 grain bullets stabilize in a 1:9 twist barrel?

    If you are into 6.5mm Creedmoor rifles, the original post on the Ammo & Reloading forum was
    Results with Savage 12 FV 6.5mm Creedmoor

    The Oryx stock post for the 6.5mm Creedmoor is on this 110 Series Bolt-Action forum:
    Trying the Oryx chassis on the 12 FV 6.5mm Creedmoor


  11. #61
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    802
    mnbogboy2,

    Thanks for bringing the missing final comparison to my attention.

    I've been keeping the data on both the factory stock and the Oryx chassis from the inception.

    This may help with seeing the results overall for all the loads that are listed in the two threads.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	12 FV .223 Oryx Sierra Summary.JPG 
Views:	37 
Size:	70.1 KB 
ID:	7012
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 12 FV .223 Comparison of Factory stock to Oryx chassis.JPG  
    Last edited by CFJunkie; 03-20-2020 at 07:49 PM. Reason: Added missing load for 77 SMK w factory

  12. #62
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    poughkeepsie new york
    Age
    72
    Posts
    80
    Thanks for posting all your data......I will have to wait a bit as all non essential travel is restricted in new york york and the gun club is on lockdown..........will give me time to try your case prep method ....enjoyed reading and learning from you...........stay safe CF

  13. #63
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    95
    My complements to the OP for the excellent detailed account of loading and impact on target

    My question is where did your barrel time spec come from. MY 26" OBT chart shows 1.330ms and you used 1.360ms.
    No contradiction just looking for inforrmation on how you came to that.

    appreciate you time and information
    6CM

  14. #64
    Basic Member Fuj''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Erie, Pa. U.S.A.
    Age
    71
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by CFJunkie View Post

    I've been keeping the data on both the factory stock and the Oryx chassis from the inception.
    Probably ought to add in barrels also. Everything has
    been a good read. I Appreciate that.....I sent your pic of the
    Sinclair Bipod off to a good shooting partner of mine. We have
    been shooting off bipods for so many years now, I feel it's time
    for him to evolve, and an excuse for the club to build a few
    more benches to work better with the wider pods, and a little
    longer for the Lab Radars. And hopefully your Range will not be
    down for long. Ours is still available, but pushing our luck with
    the County Exec.
    Keeping my bad Karma intact since 1952

  15. #65
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    802
    teele1,

    I calculated it based upon the reflection speed of a 26-inch 3% carbon steel barrel (19,107 fps) common for a Savage standard barrel.
    All of my savages seem to show that that calculation works so that speed seems to be valid for a Savage barrel.
    Reflection time will change based upon the steel of your barrel and the % of carbon and other metals in the steel mix.

    'Old' barrel steel generally has a reflection speed of 18,916 fps probably because it was a bit light on carbon.
    The materials handbook gives a general speed of 20,000 fps for stainless steel but there are a variety of stainless steel mixes.
    A 4140 or 4150 stainless steel barrel has a reflection speed of 19,969 fps.
    416R stainless steel has a reflection speed of 20,014 fps.

  16. #66
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    802
    Fug'

    I swear by my Sinclair F-class bipods. (I have two of them and have been using them for almost 7 years.)

    I have had to replace the cloth pads between the stock and the bipod on each of them, but I think they are much more stable as front rest than my much more expensive Sinclair adjustable rest. For one thing, the front of the stock doesn't move around and I can get a repeatable set up much easier.
    With a solid rear bag, I use a large Protektor, the rifle stays stable during cease fires and I can get back behind the rifle and set-up immediately.
    Also the Sinclair bipod doesn't hop like most bipods on recoil, it just slides back.
    I don't have to front load the Sinclair bipod to keep it from hopping.

    I think it is well worth the money and I have gotten my monies worth out of both of them.
    I probably have shot about 20,000 rounds over each of them.

  17. #67
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    76
    I love this thread. So much so I'm considering a scope upgrade 1st vs replacing my 12fv (223) stock.
    It's nice to have options. 😊

  18. #68
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    76
    Bumped by accident. Please delete.

  19. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    539
    SO did you use the 36x target scope on the rifle before the stock change ?
    cause the scope you started with would basically invalidate any comparison(pos)

  20. #70
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    802
    Hey Mike, give me a little credit for knowing how to perform a valid comparison.
    I've only been doing comparisons like this for 50 years.

    Since the scope I started with on first day that I shot the 12 FV with the factory stock was the same Sightron scope I used when I switched to the Oryx chassis, how could that invalidate the comparison?
    All the comparative data with the factory stock and the Oryx platform listed was using the exact same Sightron scope, not the same model, but the exact same scope.
    The stock was the only item different in the comparison.

    The Sightron scope wasn't even moved off the 12 FV receiver.
    I just removed the factory stock and dropped the 12 FV rifle with the scope still mounted into the Oryx chassis leaving the scope attached to the receiver.
    I compared the data shot with the factory stock with the Sightron scope only to the data shot with the same Sightron scope on the Oryx chassis.

    If you read some of my later treads, you probably noticed that I changed to a Leupold 45x45mm scope about the time the range reopened.
    I got the scope from a buddy who moved just after COVID hit and they closed our range.
    I needed to order rings for the Leupold scope so it was mounted during the time the range was closed.

    The last post with data on this thread was on March 20th, 4 days after they closed our range for COVID.
    The data in the post that compared the results for the factory stock and Oryx chassis was all gathered before the range was closed.
    I shot for the last time with the Sightron scope, the day before the range closed.

    On May 20th, I hadn't even mounted the the Leupold scope on the 12 FV yet.
    I mounted the new rings and the Leupold on the Oryx chassis so a reasonable comparison of the Sightron and the Leupold could only be between data shot with the Oryx chassis.

    On the later thread, only one item (the Leupold scope replacing the Sightron scope) was being changed and would be compared on a later compilation thread that I just posted.
    But I hadn't shot enough rounds with the Leupold to do any comparisons until the Fall, well after the range reopened in May.
    The factory stock will never be mounted on the 12 FV again so a comparison of the Leupold on the Oryx chassis versus the Leupold on the Factory stock will not be possible.

  21. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    539
    no i was commenting on the 8-32x pos you started with...your post not mine

    "Leatherwood 8-32x56mm scope"

  22. #72
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    802
    While you were picking nits you should have read a bit further.

    In the first post for the 12 FV on 3-19-2019, I did report "I mounted a cheap Leatherwood 8-32x56mm scope I bought on a big sale but never used just to break in the new rifle. Based on these results, I think there is a scope upgrade in this rifle's future."
    In post #7, the next post with data on 3-21-2019, I reported "I had a new scope loosen up when I was shooting the 60 TMK load and lost some groups. It also may be why that load didn't shoot too well."
    I didn't wait long to replace the cheap Leatherwood scope, did I.

    I quickly realized during break-in that the cheap bargain scope was a bad choice and mounted the Sightron 36X which stayed on the 12-FV until after our range was closed for COVID almost exactly one year later. All my comparison data included only the data from the Sightron scope.

    In my compilation of data in my most recent thread on the 12 FV .223, I compared the Sightron and Leupold 45X scope but that was only with the Oryx chassis.

  23. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    539
    well i was lost in your text
    you mentioned the 8-32x was unused, and then said the "new" scope came loose....
    you never said what the "new"scope was, and the 8-32x was the last actual mention of a scope.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Savage SA ORYX Chassis
    By varget204 in forum 110-Series Rifles
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-12-2019, 09:37 PM
  2. Oryx Chassis Initial Thoughts
    By celltech in forum 110-Series Rifles
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-17-2019, 10:51 PM
  3. Another Oryx Chassis with 12FV but in 308
    By bassman110 in forum 110-Series Rifles
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-18-2019, 05:27 PM
  4. Oryx Chassis
    By mcgradypilot in forum 110-Series Rifles
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-29-2019, 04:56 PM
  5. Possible new budget chassis offering - Oryx from MDT
    By kcb38 in forum 110-Series Rifles
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-02-2019, 10:19 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •