How Things Have Changed

[wkdickinson]

I am struck by how the game is the same, but how different our approach is.

I recently realized that the 243 Win barrel on one of my target rifles is past it’s prime. I like the 243 but wanted a change, so decided to re-barrel it in a 6 Dasher. The only thing I know about the Dasher is what I’ve read, but it sounds like it works great out to 1,000 yds. Most of my shooting is done at 600, but it would be nice to have the ability to stretch it out.

I made a deal with a guy here on the forum to buy some new brass he had no use for. I got it yesterday and WOW are those 6 Dasher cases tiny!

When I started shooting NRA High-Power and Long-Range in the late 80’s, if you wanted to be competitive in a 1,000yd “any-rifle” match, you had to be shooting a 300 Win Mag or a 30-338, with 220gr bullets on top of 65-70gr of powder, plus you had to be able to take that kind of beating for an afternoon. Compare that to today - getting the job done with the 6 Dasher (BRA/BRX), 105gr bullet and only about 32gr of powder. WOW what a difference.

Is it bullet technology that has bought us this far in 30 years, the general quality of rifles/barrels or something else?

 

[INTJ]

I think that we figured out what we were doing in long range BR, and the other disciplines took parts of what LRBR was doing and applied it to their discipline.

I started LR BR in 2005, I think by then we had figured out that those heavy, high BC bullets didn't group as well as smaller lighter bullets in most conditions. We used to think that we needed very high BC so the bullet would go the distance, but when shooting a known distance with wind flags and sighter shots, super high BC isn't needed. They also began making long range bullets in 6mm......

A huge factor is that less recoil allows faster shot strings which means we can get all of our shots off in the same micro condition. This is critical in LR BR, as I recently saw when I tried to run a 300 WSM as a light gun like I did in 2006. I just couldn't shoot it fast enough to keep up with the 6mms. I did win for score, but I was last in my relay for group agg. So I put on a 6mm barrel and became competitive again.

I suspect in other disciplines that reduced recoil is a help as well.

 

[K22]

I've been shooting the 243 Win since the late 60's. It was my first center fire rifle cartridge / rifle.

Even with judicious care, i.e. not shooting sustained strings of fire and limiting shots, as much as possible to cold barrel shots, the barrel life on a 243 Win is limited. I've gotten a little over 3,000 rounds out of my Rem 700 exercising the aforementioned shooting limitations. While it still has big game hunting accuracy, i.e 1 to 1.5 moa, it no longer meets my standards for a varmint / predator rifle.

Even though I believe David Tubb won a match years ago with a 243 Win, it not a good choice for a target rifle where some sustained fire is needed. There are much better low recoil choices.

Where the 243 Win shines is as dual purpose hunting rifle capable of taking deer size game and varmints / predators. I used it for many of my early years when money was tight and I was a one rifle guy. It served me quite well and never failed me if I did my part. I took several deer, numerous ground hogs and several foxes with it - all shots under about 250 yards. All of this with a 3 x 9 Redfield scope. This was the days before range finders and fancy hold over reticles.

 

[vonb]

As I get older, I don't handle recoil as well...Nor is it as pleasurable to shoot a higher-recoiling round. A 3-relay F/TR match would have me fatigued by the end of the match. I started hunting with smaller rounds (.223/.243/.260) and found that I really enjoyed them. As far as long range, there is something to be said for a .6+ BC 6mm moving down range with a starting speed of >2800 fps.

 

[Pawnee Bill]

"Is it bullet technology that has bought us this far in 30 years, the general quality of rifles/barrels or something else?"
I think its a combination of better bullets & better barrels.

 

[D-4297]

I'd like to think that "shared knowledge" of reloading practices , and the improvement in scopes has also added to improvements throughout the sport . Along with better quality , more consistent lot to lot powders haven't hurt either . Nearly every facet of the shooting sports has advanced and improved in the last thirty years .

 

[Capt. Oblivious]

I've been shooting the 243 Win since the late 60's. It was my first center fire rifle cartridge / rifle.

Even with judicious care, i.e. not shooting sustained strings of fire and limiting shots, as much as possible to cold barrel shots, the barrel life on a 243 Win is limited. I've gotten a little over 3,000 rounds out of my Rem 700 exercising the aforementioned shooting limitations. While it still has big game hunting accuracy, i.e 1 to 1.5 moa, it no longer meets my standards for a varmint / predator rifle.

Even though I believe David Tubb won a match years ago with a 243 Win, it not a good choice for a target rifle where some sustained fire is needed. There are much better low recoil choices.

Where the 243 Win shines is as dual purpose hunting rifle capable of taking deer size game and varmints / predators. I used it for many of my early years when money was tight and I was a one rifle guy. It served me quite well and never failed me if I did my part. I took several deer, numerous ground hogs and several foxes with it - all shots under about 250 yards. All of this with a 3 x 9 Redfield scope. This was the days before range finders and fancy hold over reticles.

John Whidden not Tubb, He seems to like his 243 but I doubt he sees a 1000 rounds through a barrel before they go south with that load even though N160 doesn't burn as hot as other powders

You are being redirected...

 

[wkdickinson]

Personally I think it is primarily the advancement in bullet technology and their subsequent availability in smaller calibers. Once they became available and people started exploring sub 30 cal. options, they found not only did they shot as well or better, but didn't beat you up nearly so badly. Whidden attributes a large part of his success with the 243 to the lower recoil. Back in the day, I shot a M70 match rifle in 308, 168 gr at 200 & 300 and 200 gr SMK's at 600+. At the end of a weekend, with an A-T-C match on Saturday, then either a Palma or long range match on Sunday, my shoulder would be black & blues for several days and I was in my 30's.

 

[K22]

John Whidden not Tubb, He seems to like his 243 but I doubt he sees a 1000 rounds through a barrel before they go south with that load even though N160 doesn't burn as hot as other powders

You are being redirected...

Actually, according to the 50th Edition of the Sierra Reloading Manual, Tubb won the 1993 High Power Championship at Camp Perry and the National Silhouette Championships at Raton with a 243 using 105 grain HPBT Match Kings with a fast twist.