Ruger has a new rifle

[jrm850]

I'm very surprised they don't offer a longer barrel. It looks like a good entry level F-Class rig if it did.

 

[Snuggie]

I've never had a Ruger that shot better than an inch. The .308 bbl needs to be longer than 20 in for any real F-Class competition. Then might be a good entry rifle for F-Class. Just my 2 cents. 8)

 

[Sparky]

I am confused. The announcement of the new Ruger Precision Rifle has added to my confusion. Admittedly, I am not a ballistics expert nor am I a physicist. Also, my understanding of ballistics and physics pales in comparison to many members of this forum. So, I humbly seek answers from you. I am in no way trying to put down this new rifle. I would really like to have one. I merely do not understand some things.



The Ruger Precision Rifle is billed as a "long range precision rifle". In at least one of the reviews that I have read on this rifle, it was stated that the use of a fast twist for caliber barrel was done in order to stabilize the heavy projectiles used for long range shooting. All of which I understand. What confounds me is the use of the 20 inch barrel for the 308 Winchester with a fast twist, intended to facilitate long range shooting. An article online, www.tacticaloperations.com/SWATbarrel/, states that when using a 168 grain load in a 308 Winchester, a complete powder burn can be achieved in a 20 inch barrel. Am I correct in assuming that if using a heavier projectile, a longer barrel would be needed to achieve a complete powder burn? In looking at Berger's website, the fastest twist needed for any 168 grain 308 caliber bullet is 1:12. The Berger website shows that only 215+grain 308 caliber bullets need a 1:10 twist. If I remember correctly, the 175 grain 308 caliber bullet is supposed to be ballistically superior to the 168 grain bullets at 1000 yards. Which I assume was why the 175 grain SMK was adopted for the M118LR round by the US military. So, why would a rifle intended for long range precision be setup with a fast twist barrel that is too short to facilitate a complete powder burn when using heavy bullets? Also, if long range precision is the goal, wouldn’t the added velocity from a 24 or 26 inch barrel shooting 175+grain bullets be desired?

I would have expected Ruger to hang a 24 or 26 inch barrel with a 1:12 or 1:11 twist on the 308 Winchester version of this rifle. Am I wrong in thinking that the longer barrel with a slightly slower twist would still handle the heavy bullets, allow a complete powder burn, and provide the additional velocity needed for long range precision? Or if this rifle was built around the 168 grain bullets, why wasn’t a slower twist used in the 20 inch barrel and the rifle stated as being built around that class bullet?

 

[Caleb85]

243 WITH 7.7 TWIST? ??!!!!!!! HELLO DTAC'S!!!

 

[GSRswapandslow]

I am confused. The announcement of the new Ruger Precision Rifle has added to my confusion. Admittedly, I am not a ballistics expert nor am I a physicist. Also, my understanding of ballistics and physics pales in comparison to many members of this forum. So, I humbly seek answers from you. I am in no way trying to put down this new rifle. I would really like to have one. I merely do not understand some things.



The Ruger Precision Rifle is billed as a "long range precision rifle". In at least one of the reviews that I have read on this rifle, it was stated that the use of a fast twist for caliber barrel was done in order to stabilize the heavy projectiles used for long range shooting. All of which I understand. What confounds me is the use of the 20 inch barrel for the 308 Winchester with a fast twist, intended to facilitate long range shooting. An article online, www.tacticaloperations.com/SWATbarrel/, states that when using a 168 grain load in a 308 Winchester, a complete powder burn can be achieved in a 20 inch barrel. Am I correct in assuming that if using a heavier projectile, a longer barrel would be needed to achieve a complete powder burn? In looking at Berger's website, the fastest twist needed for any 168 grain 308 caliber bullet is 1:12. The Berger website shows that only 215+grain 308 caliber bullets need a 1:10 twist. If I remember correctly, the 175 grain 308 caliber bullet is supposed to be ballistically superior to the 168 grain bullets at 1000 yards. Which I assume was why the 175 grain SMK was adopted for the M118LR round by the US military. So, why would a rifle intended for long range precision be setup with a fast twist barrel that is too short to facilitate a complete powder burn when using heavy bullets? Also, if long range precision is the goal, wouldn’t the added velocity from a 24 or 26 inch barrel shooting 175+grain bullets be desired?

I would have expected Ruger to hang a 24 or 26 inch barrel with a 1:12 or 1:11 twist on the 308 Winchester version of this rifle. Am I wrong in thinking that the longer barrel with a slightly slower twist would still handle the heavy bullets, allow a complete powder burn, and provide the additional velocity needed for long range precision? Or if this rifle was built around the 168 grain bullets, why wasn’t a slower twist used in the 20 inch barrel and the rifle stated as being built around that class bullet?

.308 are for guys stuck in 2001.

 

[XTR]

Sparky, it is probably a great idea to build it with a 20" 308 barrel.

Nobody in their right mind is shooting a 308 in any competition that doesn't require it. Take that from a guy who has shot over 10K rounds of 308 in the last few yrs in F-TR.

So the 308s are selling to tactical wannabe's who love the short barreled 308s that will shoot under ½ MOA "all day long if I do my part" and firmly believe that they can successfully shoot a 308 to 1000 yards with a 20" barrel, that is until the shoot against a real long range rifle and their fantasy of the steely eyed sniper gets smoked, then they bitch that a 30" tube isn't practical.

I personally find them damned practical for shooting from the 1000 yard line in F class matches, which is what mine are built for. Most of the Ruger 308s will likely never shoot past 500 yards.

Look at the barrels on the 243 and the 6.5, those are proper barrels for a precision rifle.

 

[FatBoy]

This rifle clearly had PRS style matches in mind, not F Class. The weight, mag feed, handguard all scream PRS. The 6.5 and 243 Win will be accurate enought at 1000 and will be fine inside 800y.

 

[XTR]

This rifle clearly had PRS style matches in mind, not F Class. The weight, mag feed, handguard all scream PRS. The 6.5 and 243 Win will be accurate enought at 1000 and will be fine inside 800y.

Chris, I was responding specifically to the comment that the 20" 308 wasn't for long range comps. I think the 6.5 and the 243 look like great setups, they both have barrels long enough to work. My point is that the 308 with a 20" barrel is not targeted to any competitor PRS or otherwise, (maybe XTC? ) but for the guys who want a "tactical" short barreled 308. It's a market segment.

 

[FatBoy]

I wasn't speaking directly about any comments, 308 or otherwise. Just that this rifle, though it will work at 1k in all current forms with proper ammo, looks to be set up for PRS where most shots are inside 800y to my knowledge.

We are on the same page here. Actually, I'm already working out the logistics on rebarreling to 28+ while eliminating the headspace nut and the barrel spacer.

This rifle clearly had PRS style matches in mind, not F Class. The weight, mag feed, handguard all scream PRS. The 6.5 and 243 Win will be accurate enought at 1000 and will be fine inside 800y.

Chris, I was responding specifically to the comment that the 20" 308 wasn't for long range comps. I think the 6.5 and the 243 look like great setups, they both have barrels long enough to work. My point is that the 308 with a 20" barrel is not targeted to any competitor PRS or otherwise, (maybe XTC? ) but for the guys who want a "tactical" short barreled 308. It's a market segment.

 

[akajun]

A lot of us xtc/ prone guys are excited about this gun , basically all you have to do is cut a slot for a handstop and some sights and you have a xtc/ prone bolt gun for less than 2k$.
I can tell you that if they offered one in 223 I would buy it today.
And for the guys that think 20" 308's are no good for 1k, Daniel peters with the AMU set the inner service 1k service rifle record a few years ago with a m110 shooting a 200-11x, beating all the old records fired with garands and 14's.

 

[people]

Much of the shooting is closer. A 20 inch tube seems a little short. Granted dealing with a long tube in some of the spaces they give you is darn near impossible.

You will not win with a 308 but tons of learning can be had with it. Tube life makes the other two calibers look like you need stock in a barrel factory.

 

[flatlander]

I'm sure there are plenty of guys who want a 308 simply because there's still some 7.62 NATO weapons in use by the armed forces, and still more who just flat don't give a hoot about shooting anything smaller than a .30 cal rifle. Power to 'em - I occasionally enjoy shooting my 308 Palma rifle in Palma matches, and recently built myself a DPMS-style AR10 in 308 - mostly because I still have a fair amount of loaded 7.62 ammo.

No, I'm not interested in buying one of the Ruger Precision Rifles in 308 - would much rather shoot my conventionally stocked comp/tactical rifles in 6x47L, 6XC, 6.5x47L, & 260 Imp 30*. But for anyone contemplating getting into PRS-style matches, either the 243 or 6.5 CM Ruger would likely be an excellent starting point, so it appears that Ruger played their cards right to cover all the bases. I can't count all the M700 308s with OEM 20" bbls I used to see at the closest LR PR match we shoot - evidently, every gun shop in the country had these rifles in stock, possibly including Wal Mart. Note that I said "used to see" - a goodly number of the guys who started out shooting short barreled 308s have seen the light and switched to 6mm or 6.5mm rifles.

 

[Killer bea]

Could the creedmoor be rechambered for a 260 rem or 6.5-284?

 

[flatlander]

What good would it do? You'd wind up with 140gr bullets seated way deep in longer cases, even if they would feed through AICS or P-Mags.

 

[rduckwor]

Handled one at a match yesterday. Very heavy (6.5 CM) with optic and bipod. Solid. Trigger was excellent out of the box. Safety feels loose due to lack of detent spring and ball, no big deal; it won't fall out. An ambi ssafety will tighten it up a bit.

If someone will start making replacement barrels (and they will), this is going to be a big seller for Ruger. Seems they got just about everything right on this one.

RMD

 

[Dgd6mm]

I'm sure this rifle will sell, especially due to the response it has been getting. I'm also sure pre-fit affordable accurate barrels that this rifles intended use will come. ;D

 

[Savage99]

This 'new' Ruger gun is ugly.

However it seems Rambo is buying these days.

 

[jimbo88mm]

This 'new' Ruger gun is ugly.

However it seems Rambo is buying these days.

I think it looks sharp.

btw, I'm not Rambo, nor am I a fudd

 

[rduckwor]

no uglier than a tube gun.

RMD

 

[outasite`08]

I`m never sure of the definition of ugly.I drive a Honda Element that people say is ugly.That`s okay it is the best car I have owned....Some of you think the new Ruger is a little on the ugly side,but if it shoots I`ll take all the ugly I can get.I`ll let you know,I`m in.