I can tell you why you were disappointed: you used a chronograph! Folks claiming big numbers are being silly. It's very efficient but it doesn't break the rules of the universe. It's like the guys claiming the 6.5x47 can match a 260 Remington. Simply not true; 10 grains of powder is A LOT of difference in velocity. But just as in this case, the smaller cartridge seems to shoot more consistently accurate with less effort.Well, I fell for the Vartarg once. I read all the hype, perused the load data showing fantastic efficiency and jumped on the band wagon.
Then I started looking for those velocity numbers everyone claimed. Couldn't even get close. The barrel was a great shooter but vartarg just wouldn't move like I thought it should've. It became the best shooting, most awesome bullet slinging, 204 Ruger I ever owned. Oh, that solved the velocity issue!
I can tell you why you were disappointed: you used a chronograph! Folks claiming big numbers are being silly. It's very efficient but it doesn't break the rules of the universe. It's like the guys claiming the 6.5x47 can match a 260 Remington. Simply not true; 10 grains of powder is A LOT of difference in velocity. But just as in this case, the smaller cartridge seems to shoot more consistently accurate with less effort.
I don't care how fast it shoots them, cause they make it to 300yards with plenty of oomph left and similar drift and drop as my 22-250 running 50 vmax at a moderate 3500fps. Mine shoots superbly accurate at that distance with 1" being an obtainable goal and most days yield at least one sub 0.5" group.
I’ve been intrigued by the little VarTarg ever since an old guy at the range let me shoot his a few years ago. Personally, if I’m building one it’s going to be on a 12 Twist for 32s. If had a faster twist barrel on hand or I just wanted to shoot heavier bullets, I would just go ahead and build a 20 Practical or 204R so as to not handicap my velocity with such a small case.