|
Post by gastonguns on Jan 29, 2013 19:31:49 GMT -5
I've posted on another thread some comments on stability with the 24F Camo Predator .223/12ga I purchased recently. I have measured the twist and believe it is not faster than 1 in 12 inches. 55 grain will not stabilize. 40 grain makes very tight groups. Next I will try some 45 grain Sierras I have. What was Savage thinking or drinking to build a .223 with such slow twist rate? Has anyone else experienced this issue? Do I have any choice other than to live with the lightweight bullets?
|
|
|
Post by gastonguns on Jan 29, 2013 20:10:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cas on Jan 30, 2013 0:54:40 GMT -5
That's what what .223's were made for. All this fast twist stuff came from the government to get it to stabilize tracer rounds and later heavier bullets, trying to make it into something it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by odell23 on Jan 30, 2013 14:17:23 GMT -5
Don't forget, the .223 Remington was originally called the .222 Special. Remington simply found slightly better ballistic coefficients when they added just a little bit more powder and size to their .222 Remington. It was the speed demon handloader freaks who pushed the envelope of weight and powder which caused the need for tighter twist rates.
|
|
|
Post by oldfotoman on Feb 1, 2013 16:54:26 GMT -5
Very interesting info. I posted a question on another thread here because I recently got a 223 over 20 gauge.
cas and odell23 seem to be on track, but slightly off according to the info I got from Cartridges of the World and from several web sources. And your measurements are not what Savage told me.
The 222 originally had a twist rate of 1:14, then went to 1:12 when trying to meet newer mil specs. The 223 (or 5.56) was actually a new cartridge developed for a twist rate of 1:9 for the initial cartridge M193 and 223, 55grain; then went to a 1:7 twist for the 62grain M855. The 222 had been modified to it's limits already, so the 223 was developed as a new cartridge to replace it. It was not a modification of the 222. Since the original twist rate for the 223 is 1:9, they were never designed or intended for the slower 1:12.
Savage informed me that all of their 223 barrels are either 1:9 or 1:7. Their 222 barrels were a twist rate of 1:14 or 1:12. However, they also said that they do not have complete records for the older models as Savage changed ownership in 1995. The Savage 24 was not discontinued until 2007, so many were made under this new ownership and many, many more under the older ownerships and managements. So it is quite possible that Savage does not actually know just what the twist rates are in the different years of production.
This begs a couple more questions. As I've read an almost equal number of people who say theirs are tack drivers to those who say theirs are unstable or not accurate at any reasonable distance: I have to wonder --- Did Savage maybe use up their excess 222 barrels by just chambering them for the 223? This different twist rate could certainly explain the inconsistencies. Most everything I've seen from someone who has re-chambered their 222 to a 223 says they are more accurate with slower, lighter bullets.
If there are some out there with the slower twist and some with the faster twist that the 223 was designed for. It could certainly make a major difference in the accuracy. The lighter, slower bullets that have similar ballistics to the 222 would stabilize in the slow rate just like the 222s did; while the heavier, faster 223s would not. Seems like any of them should stabilize fine in the faster twist barrels.
Most of my info comes from trying to do some extensive research on the differences between the 5.56 NATO and the 223. A web search of the comparison between 5.56 and 223 will give you some really great history of the cartridges and their development. Also, as much info as I could find on the Savage 24 in this caliber.
Hopefully, some of this info may be somewhat helpful or at least a little interesting. Now I'm certainly curious to see what the actual twist rate on mine is, and maybe if we get enough others to check theirs; we may be able to explain the inconsistencies from one gun to the next. I kind of just always thought it was a quality control issue during the years of financial difficulties for the company.
|
|
|
Post by oldfotoman on Feb 1, 2013 17:55:10 GMT -5
Maybe correcting myself here, but after thinking about it I did a quick check again. The original 223 was developed for and named 5.56 Nato after the military adopted it. It was developed for a twist of 1:9 in a 16" barrel. Many civilian makers did make the 223 in a twist rate of 1:12, usually in 24" or longer barrels.
I can find no explanation, but can only guess that they figured that the 2 full twists in the longer barrel would compensate for the faster twist in the shorter barrels. Just my guess though.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb1911 on Feb 12, 2013 2:07:53 GMT -5
Actually, the 223 originally was a varmint round, and was intended for 40-50 gr bullets. The wiz kids in the Kenned admin decided to make it into a man killer by putting the too heavy to stabilize 55 gr bullets in it. The rest is AR history.
Back to the Savage 24.........they were NEVER meant to stabilize heavy bullets! Think also about WHEN they were still being made. The SS109/M855 (62 gr bullets) STARTED in late 80's. The vast majority of Savage 24's out there are from before then, so they never thought about using heavy bullets in them. They will also have .223 chambers and as such have very short leades going into the rifling, which if you reload you already know. Switch to some 40-50 gr bullets, and they become tack drivers usually. BUT TAKE YOUR TIME!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember, the upper rifle barrel heating up while the lower shotgun barrel does not will result in vertical strings, usually (but not always) going down as that barrel gets hot!
|
|
|
Post by vancmike on Feb 24, 2013 14:16:49 GMT -5
We're all bouncing around the actual history: my readings show that originally, the 5.56 Nato round was to be 55 gr/1-12" (or so) twist, and the 223 Remington was developed soon after (in 1964).
In 1977, NATO tests prior to the final adoption of the cartridge, mandated a 62 gr. cartridge (the 55-gr. bullet was deemed contrary to the Geneva Convention), thus the 1-7" or 1-9" twist (obviously, the Kennedy administration had ended in 1973; Jeff1911 is correct about the longer leade in the 5.56 NATO cartridge).
FWIW, when I was in the US Army, I recall trading in my M-14 (would have been sometime +/- 1970), and we were all issued unlimited 55 gr. cartridges for practice, but issued 62 gr. cartridges for actual hostilities (changed POI? don't ask: it's the Army way....).
But I digress: the .223 Remington, with its 1-12" twist went on to become what has been deemed the world's most popular civilian cartridge, eclipsing its predecessors, the 222 Rem and 222 Rem Mag. Savage didn't have Mdl 24s chambered in the later cartridge, but they'd chambered a boat-load in 222 Rem, and, no doubt, had another boat load of Mdl 24 barrels in 222 Rem.
So it's no surprise that many of the various Mdl 24s (at least the one I've measured...that's 1) have 1-14 twists; all Savage had to do was ream the chambers out slightly and mark the barrel appropriately). Seems like odell may have chatted about this somewhere in the old forum.
When I bought my 222/20, I contemplated reaming out the chamber to .223 Rem, but never got around to it. Probably not necessary: because of the 1-14" twist, I'd still have been restricted to 50 gr. or lighter bullets, and my triple-deuce delights me with its accuracy every time I shoot it.
Incidentally, I see on this morning's GA auction site a couple 24Fs: one in 223/20, the other in 12/20. They look purdy in the pictures. They ought to: the seller wants $900 each.....
|
|
|
Post by bigkelly on Feb 24, 2013 17:05:19 GMT -5
My 24F loves winchester 45gr JHP (I think I have at least 7 40 round boxes in the ammo safe)---it shoots them like nutting you would believe I can make a crow turn into a black puff of feathers!!!!
|
|
|
Post by vancmike on Feb 24, 2013 17:29:22 GMT -5
Oh, oh, Kelly....that's only 280 crows. I'd advise you to take up reloading, but you can't get components either.....
Keep that ammo safe!
BTW, did you go python hunting during the big Burmese Python hunt?
|
|
|
Post by bigkelly on Feb 24, 2013 19:00:58 GMT -5
No Mike the snake hunters were more of political "show" than a real attempt to curb the problem If and when I see a snake I'll just blow its head off and leave it for the buzzards or gators!!!LOL
|
|
|
Post by savagecombo on Mar 9, 2013 13:13:16 GMT -5
To possibly help in sorting fact from fiction within this topic, I have attached info from the horse's mouth, namely Savage Arms catalog from the year 2000, which includes the Savage 24F in it's contents, showing the rate of twist at 1 in 9" for the 223 Rem. SC
|
|
|
Post by vancmike on Mar 12, 2013 16:21:09 GMT -5
"Savage Arms catalog from the year 2000, which includes the Savage 24F in it's contents, showing the rate of twist at 1 in 9" for the 223 Rem..."
In that year (and since then and, no doubt, some years prior). However, there's also no doubt that Savage chambered some .223 Rem in barrels that were originally intended for the .222 Rem., and subsequently in 1/14" twist.
The lesson is, if you have a .223 Rem produced in the earlier years, check the twist.
|
|
|
Post by odell23 on Mar 13, 2013 9:02:28 GMT -5
Lest we forget, Savage (under the ownership of Emhart) gave us the Model 24V in .222 Remington all the way back in 1967 and 1:14" right handed twist was the norm.
The .223 Remington does not show up in until well into the production of the Model 24V Series D some time in the 1980's (can't remember the exact year right now) with a similar twist rate.
The new and current owners of Savage gave us the 24F begining in 1989 which was a complete overhaul of the older guns and the twist rate for .223 Remington changed with it.
|
|
|
Post by vancmike on Mar 14, 2013 13:41:16 GMT -5
Was just re-reading some of my older Rifle magazine articles, and came across a Sept., '06 review of a Savage 11F by Mike Venturino. He indicated his was in a 1-9" twist. He got outstanding accuracy shooting (among others) Hornady 40 gr. V-Max. That surprised me, a little. Couple of years ago, a friend of mine was shooting some hand-loaded 35 gr. varmint bullets in his newer Savage bolt-action, and if we put the morning light behind us just right, we could see the bullets self-destructing about 30-50 yds. out. Don't remember the bullet brand. Now, this friend almost always loads up to the max, and these 35-gr. bullets obviously had a very thin jacket that didn't hold up to the high 1-9 twist and speeds. Pretty interesting, actually. When I shot the same load in my 1-12" Winchester, no problem. I shot up all those loads on prairie dogs, and he's still complaining that I owe him......
|
|