Favorite T/C Contender Chambering
Alan K Biocca
I have found the 7mm TC/U to be very accurate (~1/2 - 1" @ 100 yds) and have
significant power (2100 fps 140 grains). The ballistics of the 7mm bullets
are excellent, far superior to the 30-30.
The 30-30 has a bit too much case capacity for the barrel length and so
is more difficult to make accurate. It kicks a bit more, too.
7mm TC/U is 223 casings opened up to 7mm. The good dies make this a single
sizing operation, and the first firing fills out the shoulder.
#How about barrel length ?
That's more a personal choice. I use 10" barrels.
#I am seriously contemplating a Contender in 30-30. Or maybe 45-70.
#Are the balistics of the bottle neck rifle cartridges comprimised by the
#non-rifle barrel lengths ?
I don't think 2100 fps for 140 gr 7mm bullet is too bad in a 10" barrel.
#How's the recoil :^)
I upgraded to the cushioned grip and got some shooting gloves to make it less
noticeable. The biggest problem isn't the recoil, it is the noise. I usually
put foam earplugs under the earmuffs -- it is LOUD.
# Greg Mitchell gr...@informix.com
Alan K Biocca
AKBi...@lbl.gov
dmu...@gollum.wr.tek.com
In article <45...@mimsy.umd.edu> infmx!gr...@uunet.uu.net (Greg Mitchell) writes:
#
#What is your favorite chambering for the T/C Contender ?
A 10" .30-30 which I use for shooting silhouette.
#Are the balistics of the bottle neck rifle cartridges comprimised by the
#non-rifle barrel lengths ?
#How's the recoil :^)
Excellent questions. Several reloading handbooks have mentioned that the
.30-30 is not efficient in the 10" barrel, the problem being that burning
is not uniform in so short a length. On the other hand, I've seen 14"
.30-30 T/C's that are real tack drivers at 200 meters. As John has mentioned,
a bit of experimenting will show that there are powder/bullet combinations
that do very well in the 10" .30-30. I started out with Remington factory
rounds and they did very poorly -- to me, it seemed they were loaded with
a real slow powder intended for 20+" rifle barrels. I tried 748, which was
better, but the powder was still too slow. Currently I'm using 4198 and
getting good results with it. Based on the little experience I've had, I'd
say the penalty you pay for using short barrel lengths is that you have to
experiment more to find a good powder/bullet combination and determine how
far to seat the bullet out. But the accuracy is there. I don't mind doing
experiments of this nature, so it's actually been fun.
I thought the recoil in the Remington factory rounds (150 gr) got to be a bit
much after 12 rounds: the side of the frame at the top of the trigger guard
was slicing into my finger (blood all over the place) and my knuckles were
getting banged up (and I'm no girly-man either :-). These loads appeared to
be near maximum, as it was difficult to open the action and the primers were
flattened. My own rounds (150 gr & 165 gr) use medium loads from the
reloading books are *much* lighter in recoil. They also have sufficient power
to clean a bank of 55-lb rams at 200 meters. Recoil shouldn't be a problem,
but try one out first to see how you like it.
#( Isn't it goofy ? Here in Oregun I can walk out of any gun store with
#an armfull of military style rifles, extended mags and enough ammo to
#declair myself a sovereign state in the time it takes to fill out the
#paperwork.
Ssshhh! :-)
-Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-= CUM CATAPULTAE PROSCRIPTAE BRUNT TUM SOLI PROSCRIPTI CATAPULTAS HABEBUNT =-
(when catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen D. Grant
Its accurate, mild recoil, has good range, ammo is readily available and
inexpensive and its just a really fun cartridge to shoot in the Contender.
I like the 10" barrel also. Its easy to hit a milk jug at 200 yards with one.
Henry E. Schaffer
Does anyone have any experience with the T/C Contender in
.222 Remington? Or even any thoughts on the matter?
--henry schaffer n c state univ
Steven R Faber
# The 30-30 has a bit too much case capacity for the barrel length and so
# is more difficult to make accurate. It kicks a bit more, too.
#
How does case capacity vs barrel length affect accuracy?
I know .308 is supposed to be capable of better accuracy than 30-06
because of the shorter case, but don't know why.
--
Steven R. Faber, N9FYX
AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL - live free or die, NH
Disclaimer- a large companies' opinions are probably whatever the
current media propaganda lines are on the subject, and not my own.
Will Martin
|( Isn't it goofy ? Here in Oregun I can walk out of any gun store with
|single shot handgun I have to wait 2 weeks while the athorities make sure
|I am "OK". ( Yeah, I know, I might hide that Super-14" barrel down my
|pants leg where no one would notice it ;-)
I wonder if any person or organization has tried to use this obvious
inconsistency to try to get anti-gun legislators to support a gun-law
liberalization? Specifically, if a politician claims that high-capacity
magazines and/or semi-auto firearms are inherently dangerous and should
be banned, he would have to admit that single-shot firearms are
therefore safer and less dangerous than manually-operated (like bolt,
pump, lever-action, or revolving) firearms. Thus, to be intellectually
honest and consistent [yes, I realize the concept of "intellectual honesty"
is alien to politicians... :-(], that same politician who supports limits
or bans on semi-autos or large magazines would have to also support a
REDUCTION in legal restrictions on single-shot firearms. For example, in
states with waiting periods for handgun purchases, a single-shot handgun
would have no wait required, or no purchase permit at all would be required
(just the federal 4473). In states where there are waits or ID cards
required for long-gun purchases, single-shot long guns would have no
paperwork or wait required. Single-shot shotgun pistols could have their
federal status as restricted firearms eliminated. And so forth...
Now, I'm not saying that this is a correct viewpoint. But the view that
rapid-firing, higher-capacity firearms are worse than others, which
seems to be espoused by many legislators, does also imply that
single-shot firearms are inherently "better". So why not a push to
specifically ease the existing restrictions on them? The pro-gun
politicians would support this as a matter of course, and, if the
anti-gun politicians would go along in order to appear consistent in
their philosophy, we could maybe end up with something good, like
mail-order sales of single-shots allowed or the like...
Of course, I realize that the anti-gunners really want all firearms banned,
no matter what they are. But I think this might be a way we could use
their own twisted logic against them. If we could get the pro-gun forces
to stay strong enough to prevent semi-auto bans, while at the same time
getting support from both pro- and anti-gun sides for less restrictions
on single-shots, we would come out ahead.
The only negative I can see is that this further legislates and
emphasizes the false division and distinction between "good" and "bad"
types of firearms. That is what gave rise to the assault-rifle bans in
the first place. It would be better to not have any such distinctions;
having them allows such things as the skeet and trap shooters saying
that *their* shotguns are good while *those* paramilitary types' battle
rifles are bad and should be legislated against. This sort of dissention
in the ranks is one of the main problems in our fight against the
anti-gunners. But I fear this false distinction is with us permanently
now, anyway, so why not turn it to our advantage instead of just
suffering under it?
Have any state organizations, or the NRA itself, or any of the other
pro-gun lobbyist groups, ever tried to promote this? It sounds like it
should be a good standard "amendment" tactic to use whenever the antis
introduce new gun-restriction bills.
Will
Toby Bradshaw
wonders on jackrabbits, scorching them with the muzzle blast if not killing
them with the bullet. He shoots 25gr AA2230 behind a 50gr Speer TNT (the best
exploding varmint bullet in .224, IMHO), as yet unchronographed. The gun is
not as accurate as my Rem 700 PSS in .223, but will produce 1.5 inch groups
at 100 yards using a 2-7 Burris.
Toby Bradshaw
John De Armond
#What is your favorite chambering for the T/C Contender ?
#How about barrel length ?
Depends on what you're trying to do. For Silhouette production class
I use a .30-30 in a 10" barrel.
#Are the balistics of the bottle neck rifle cartridges comprimised by the
#non-rifle barrel lengths ?
No. Assuming you load for the barrel, the .30-30 is an excellent
cartridge. I've posted my load before but here it is again:
165 gr Spitzer
20.5 gr SR-4759
Fed 210 primer
This load generates a velocity of 1555 fps from a 10 inch barrel with
very low recoil. This load produces over .9 lb-sec of momentum which
is more than enough to get even a stuborn ram.
About recoil. Every non-silhouette shooter who sees my "ram arsenal"
(The T/C plus a .308 unlimited bolt gun) bugs his eyes out and makes some
comment about arm-breaking recoil. My little secret. It's not that bad.
Take a look at some calculations done with William Frenchu's Excellent
BALISTIC program:
.357 mag .44 mag my .30-30 load
------------------------------------------------------
Velocity 1348 1450 1555
Bullet weight 160 gr 240 165
powder 17gr H296 22 gr 2400 20.5 SR-4759
Gun weight 2.5 lbs 3.5 lbs 3.5 lbs
Recoil energy 10.2 ft-lb 17.2 ft-lb 9.9 ft-lb
I used estimated weights for the revolvers because I only own one detective
special .38. As you can see, the .30-30 falls comfortably between the
.357 and the .44 mag. I used the maximum bullet weight listed in the
Speer manual for each.
One other thing to look at that is very important and that is how much
the weight of the powder adds to the recoil. Using the same numbers
above for my .30-30 but with an old load of 39 gr of H380 the recoil
works out to >> 16 ft-lbs << at 1400 fps. This illustrates that one
can almost halve the felt recoil at the same velocity simply with the
proper choice of powder. I should also note that the H380 load was a
real fireballer and ground pounder with lots of flash and blast.
Only a small tongue of flame is seen with the SR-4759.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga | "It's not a bald spot, its a solar panel for
j...@dixie.com | a sex machine."
John De Armond
#I have found the 7mm TC/U to be very accurate (~1/2 - 1" @ 100 yds) and have
#significant power (2100 fps 140 grains). The ballistics of the 7mm bullets
#are excellent, far superior to the 30-30.
NO! This myth was started back in the Gates era of IHSMA when they has
a vested interest in 7mm. Lets look at some actual numbers. I've
again used Bill Frenchu's BALISTIC program to compare your load with my
.30-30. The Speer book does not list a 140 gr bullet so I used a 145
grain one. I assumed 20 grains of powder only so our powder weights
would be similiar. In both cases Spitzer bullets were used.
Here's your 7mm load:
Speer 145 gr Spitzer 7mm
(Calculated using Ingalls' table)
Bullet Weight ......... 145 grains Bullet Caliber ........ 0.284
Sectional Density ..... 0.257 Coefficient of Form ... 0.562
Effective Bal. Coeff... 0.457 Bal. Coeff. at STP .... 0.457
Cross wind ............ 10.0 m.p.h. Altitude .............. 0 Ft.
Atmospheric pressure .. 30.00 in. Temperature ........... 60.0 F
Range Velocity Energy Momentum Mx. Ord. Defl. Drop Lead Time
yards f.p.s. ft-lb. lb.-sec. in. in. in. in/mph sec.
0 2100 1419.7 1.3521 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000
55 2007 1296.3 1.2920 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.080
109 1916 1182.2 1.2338 1.3 1.3 5.0 2.9 0.164
164 1829 1076.7 1.1775 3.0 3.0 11.6 4.4 0.251
219 1745 979.7 1.1232 5.7 5.4 21.4 6.0 0.343
Here's my .30-30 load:
Speer .30-30 - 165 gr. Spitzer
(Calculated using Ingalls' table)
Bullet Weight ......... 165 grains Bullet Caliber ........ 0.308
Sectional Density ..... 0.248 Coefficient of Form ... 0.541
Effective Bal. Coeff... 0.459 Bal. Coeff. at STP .... 0.459
Cross wind ............ 10.0 m.p.h. Altitude .............. 0 Ft.
Atmospheric pressure .. 30.00 in. Temperature ........... 60.0 F
Range Velocity Energy Momentum Mx. Ord. Defl. Drop Lead Time
yards f.p.s. ft-lb. lb.-sec. in. in. in. in/mph sec.
0 1555 885.8 1.1393 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000
55 1484 806.3 1.0869 0.6 0.4 2.2 1.9 0.108
109 1415 733.9 1.0370 2.4 1.8 9.2 3.9 0.221
164 1351 668.2 0.9895 5.6 4.1 21.3 6.0 0.340
219 1291 610.5 0.9458 10.4 7.4 39.1 8.2 0.464
I've witnessed on a number of occasions this .30-30 load in the hands of
our state champ Nial Tuvel shoot 3/8" groups at 100 yards so the claimed
accuracies are equivalent. Given that the thing that matters for
Silhouette is the downrange momentum. Most people who have considered
the issue and/or have experimented agreee that about .75 lb-sec is
required to reliably knock down a hard set ram. Your 7mm load delivers
more momentum than the .30-30 but both are comfortably over the required
.75 lb-sec. The 7mm has a "better" trajectory (assuming "better" ==
less drop) but that's moot for competition since one knows the distance
and <should> has a table of sight settings already prepared. I should
note that when developing this load we observed similiar accuracy at
25 gr powder and 1850 fps. The recoil was worse and the 20.5 gr load
has enough knockdown power so that's what we use.
#The 30-30 has a bit too much case capacity for the barrel length and so
#is more difficult to make accurate. It kicks a bit more, too.
Let's look at recoil. Assuming a 3.5lb gun and 20 gr of powder,
here are the numbers:
.30-30 10.4 ft-lb
7mm 12.8 ft-lb
YOUR load kicks worse than mine! And I suspect that I'm being generous
in assuming you use only 20 gr of powder. For 25 gr of powder, the recoil
is 14.1 ft-lb or almost 50% greater than the .30-30.
So for only a bit more (unnecessary for Silhouette) downrange momentum, you
tolerate much more recoil, much more muzzle blast, expensive components
and the necessity of manufacturing your cases. I buy Midway bulk cases
and bullets at a fraction of what the 7mm components cost. (consider:
Midway's price for 7BR <the closest stock brass to 7T/C> at $135.95
per 500 vs $68.95 per 500 for the .30-30)
On a more practical note, here in Georgia anyone who is winning in the
production class (and many of us wannabes :-) are shooting .30-30.
It's gotten a very much undeserved bum rap. So much so that I consider
it my secret weapon.
#I upgraded to the cushioned grip and got some shooting gloves to make it less
#noticeable. The biggest problem isn't the recoil, it is the noise. I usually
#put foam earplugs under the earmuffs -- it is LOUD.
Ah, all you need to do is get a different barrel :-)
Gregory W. Hayes
Well, I've only got one right now - chambered for .30-30. I plan to add
a couple more in the near future, probably 6.5mm JDJ and a .375JDJ.
Since there are so many available from TC and others, there's quite a
bit available to fill a variety of roles.
What are you planning to use it for?
#How about barrel length ?
If you plan to shoot IHMSA, production, you're limited to 10 inches.
The free class allows pretty much anything, except scopes, from what I
remember, but you're at a disadvantage considering custom bolt guns.
For just having fun, I'd probably stick with the Super14's, especially
with larger capacity cases, to insure powder burn.
Since we're on the subject, has anyone tried the Super16 barrels and
noted any differences?
#I am seriously contemplating a Contender in 30-30. Or maybe 45-70.
If you're talking about deer hunting, there's also the .35 Remington as
a consideration. Its a good deer killer with even heavier bullets than
the .30-30.
#Are the balistics of the bottle neck rifle cartridges comprimised by the
#non-rifle barrel lengths ?
They, especially .30-30, responds well to reloading. Most rifle loads
are designed to be shot in rifle length barrels so they aren't nearly as
accurate as are possible. It just takes time and patience to find a
load that works for what you want. It also depends on what kind of
accuracy you are looking for. Hunting loads don't need to have as tight
groups as match loads, but then the match loads will probably be lighter
than comparable hunting loads and that extra energy may make a
difference in a clean kill and going and searching for a wounded animal.
Again, it depends on what you plan to use the weapon for.
#How's the recoil :^)
Not too bad actually. I have Pachmayrs all the way around. The muzzle
blast is the bad thing. I was sitting next to a guy with a .264 Win mag
M70 one day and I was generating just as much noise as he. I don't
think my 7mm Rem mag Ruger is as loud.
Good Luck!
Greg Hayes
Gregory W. Hayes
#
# Does anyone have any experience with the T/C Contender in
#.222 Remington? Or even any thoughts on the matter?
I was wondering this myself. Since .222 Rem used to be a real popular
benchrest round, it should have excellent accuracy. With Dion
Hollenbeck's (sorry for misspelling) offer of .222 Rem dies for sale, I
almost did it, but I figured the wife would shoot ME if I brought
another purchase home. :-) Anyway, I'd opt for one of the longer
barrels, possibly a Super16 if it were offered.
Anyone have experience with the .17 Rem barrel?
Greg Hayes
Jim Heath
long chamber. I don't know if this is the cause, but it is hard
to find loads for this one that will group under 1" at 25 yds.
My .44 14" and .32 mag. 10" will group ~.5" (or less) when
properly fed.
Something I have always been curious about is why different
powders seem to change the width of a group. It seems to me that
it should only affect the height of the group.
--
Jim Heath "Land of song, said the warrior bard,
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, your rights shall guard,
One faithful harp will praise thee."
Doug Gwyn
In article <46...@mimsy.umd.edu> wma...@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes:
#Now, I'm not saying that this is a correct viewpoint. But the view that
#rapid-firing, higher-capacity firearms are worse than others, which
#seems to be espoused by many legislators, does also imply that
#single-shot firearms are inherently "better". So why not a push to
#specifically ease the existing restrictions on them?
Because in a compromise between the irrational and the rational,
only the irrational can gain. If you grant the anti-gunner's
incorrect premise, you weaken the case for rational gun laws.
Gale Barrows
#
# Does anyone have any experience with the T/C Contender in
# .222 Remington? Or even any thoughts on the matter?
#
# --henry schaffer n c state univ
I had a 10 inch barrel for my TC that I used quite a bit. Unfortunately,
I replaced my .222 rifles with .223's and decided to rechamber the .22
barrel to .223. Although the barrel specs out properly for .223, I have
had excess headspace problems. *Then* I discovered the TC must have less
headspace than is normal. Guess I will have to take it out to .222Magnum !
This is from
ga...@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
Grant DeLorean
#So for only a bit more (unnecessary for Silhouette) downrange momentum, you
#tolerate much more recoil, much more muzzle blast, expensive components
#and the necessity of manufacturing your cases. I buy Midway bulk cases
#and bullets at a fraction of what the 7mm components cost. (consider:
#Midway's price for 7BR <the closest stock brass to 7T/C> at $135.95
#per 500 vs $68.95 per 500 for the .30-30)
I won't let you get away with this. 7mm TC/U is formed from .223 brass,
not from .308 or 7mmBR brass. For 500 rounds of Remington .223 brass the
price in the latest catalog is $60.95, for 500 rounds of 30-30 the price
is $72.95. Once through the neck sizer (I size all my brass before using
it anyway) and away you go. 7mmBR brass is a special case that costs more
becuase it is a rather special item and isn't a fair comparison. It is
only recently available, Remington released the XP-100 in 7mm BR in
1980 but didn't offer factory brass until 1977. Before that it had
to be made from special .308 benchrest brass that was even more expensive.
If you like 30-30 better than 7mm TC/U or 7mm BR, just be honest and
say so without making up stuff to "prove" why.
That being said, I am not using 7mm TC/U in production anymore myself.
I hate the feel of Contenders, even with a set of Grippers on them. They
chew a hole in my trigger finger with the frame. I am shooting an MOA,
with a "30x39" (a 7.62x39 using .308 rather than .311 bullets) barrel on
it as my production gun. My unlimited gun is still a custom XP-100 in
7mm-08 though...
#On a more practical note, here in Georgia anyone who is winning in the
#production class (and many of us wannabes :-) are shooting .30-30.
#It's gotten a very much undeserved bum rap. So much so that I consider
#it my secret weapon.
True, it has gotten a bum rap. But it is no better and no worse than
7mm TC/U or 7mm BR or .357 Maximum. I have seen 40's shot with all 4, it
is the shooter that makes the difference.
--
\ Grant DeLorean - IHMSA Life Member - (gr...@bluemoon.rn.com) /
If Sarah Brady, Ted Kennedy, Howard Metzenbaum and their ilk get their
way, America will become "The land of the Fee and the home of the Slave".
Dennis Schrieber
#
# Does anyone have any experience with the T/C Contender in
#
#--henry schaffer n c state univ
My orginal T/C barrel is a 222 Remington. Its one of the old octagons. I love it!!!!
There have been several soles that have tryed to conveince me that the 223 is better
and, mybe it is, but, I'm not about to give it up. My other favorite is my
41 Mag.. Its a 10" bull and great for deer hunting..
dennis
--
| Eastman Kodak Co. | Dennis L. Schrieber |
| Engineering Systems Division | den...@kodak.UUCP |
| Intergrated Technologies Unit | Kodak Park,Rochester,N.Y.|
| CIM Architects Group | Land Line (716)477-1686 |
Dion Hollenbeck
Gregory> Anyone have experience with the .17 Rem barrel?
Not on a T/C Contender, but in a rifle (Remington 700 BDL).
Bought one out of the GUN LIST advertised as "New In Box".
Come to find out this was a joke, since the barrel was shot
out according to Remington Customer Service (they replaced
barrel and action for $155, what an incredible deal!!!).
To finally get down to the meat of things, here is what I learned
about .17 Remington in the painful process of getting mine to
shoot. I have talked to numerous people and read numerous
articles on .17 Rem and the following "facts" have been
mentioned. (BTW, on getting it back from Remington and shooting
for the first time with ammo not tuned to the barrel at all, I
am gettin sub 1" groups at 100 yards, so the potential is
REALLY there when everything is right).
Some people love them and shoot them all day with good accuracy
and not clean until the end of the day. Other people would love
them, but they are so damned finicky that they must be cleaned
EVERY 5 shots or accuracy drops off noticably.
All sources agree that with a projectile as tiny as the .17,
getting it spinning as fast as possible is critical. Low powder
charges (hence slow velocities) tend to allow slow spin which
contributes to tumbling (a tumbler will most likely end up
several FEET from point of aim).
People in the know in the benchrest game are VERY skeptical of
the .17 being able to compete in this area. They recommend
.222 Rem instead (for many years, the .222 was the top caliber
in benchrest, since replaced with 6mm and .22 PPC) as being more
accurate and less finicky, but still mainstream factory caliber.
Things about a T/C Contender which would tend to bring the worst
in .17 Rem would seem to be the length of barrel. It would
seem to me to be REALLY hard to find a powder which burns fast
enough to get the .17 up to speed (normal 3500 to 4500 fps)
in just a 16" barrel, much less a 10". If you don't get good
spin, you are not going to get any accuracy at all.
The above is just a collection of facts and your mileage may
differ if you get a T/C in this caliber, but it all would tend
to make me very wary of a .17 T/C.
--
Dion Hollenbeck UUCP: {uunet, ucsd, sun}!megatek!hollen
Megatek Corporation 9645 Scranton Rd. San Diego, Ca. 92121
(619)455-5590x2814
Bruce D Woods
##.222 Remington? Or even any thoughts on the matter?
#
#I was wondering this myself. Since .222 Rem used to be a real popular
#benchrest round, it should have excellent accuracy. With Dion
Isn't the 6mm BR Remington a more versatile round - as accurate?
K. Karcich
#h...@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
##
## Does anyone have any experience with the T/C Contender in
## .222 Remington? Or even any thoughts on the matter?
##
## --henry schaffer n c state univ
#I had a 10 inch barrel for my TC that I used quite a bit. Unfortunately,
#I replaced my .222 rifles with .223's and decided to rechamber the .22
#barrel to .223. Although the barrel specs out properly for .223, I have
#had excess headspace problems. *Then* I discovered the TC must have less
#headspace than is normal. Guess I will have to take it out to .222Magnum !
The TC uses standard headspace specifications but you don't measure it from
the chamber shoulder to the rear of the barrel, you measure it from the
sholder to the breech face. Your gunsmith screwed up. In real life, headspace
is about right in a break action gun when there is just a little resistance
as you close the action.
If you reload you can achieve the same effect by backing your dies out until
you can just close the action. If your shooting factory ammo, then taking out
to .222 mag is your only option.
regds
ken karcich
# This is from
# ga...@bluemoon.rn.com
#who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
Gregory W. Hayes
#Isn't the 6mm BR Remington a more versatile round - as accurate?
I don't know about the accuracy of any of the BR family; anyone out
there care to elaborate on their success with any of them? Also, does
anyone know how they picked up the Bench Rest name? Has a rifle ever
been used in benchrest competition chambered for one of this family?
In the context of TC Contenders, TC won't chamber anything based on the
.308 case - not enough meat left around the chamber to safely handle the
pressure. I even called TC's custom shop to find out for sure and the
manager echoed this. There may be a custom barrel maker out there who
does, however. I don't know if I'd want to try it, though; I figure TC
knows how far they can push it. Anyone have any firsthand info about
any .308 based TCs?
Greg Hayes
Gregory W. Hayes
# That being said, I am not using 7mm TC/U in production anymore myself.
#I hate the feel of Contenders, even with a set of Grippers on them. They
#chew a hole in my trigger finger with the frame. I am shooting an MOA,
#with a "30x39" (a 7.62x39 using .308 rather than .311 bullets) barrel on
#it as my production gun. My unlimited gun is still a custom XP-100 in
#7mm-08 though...
I'm not sure if I misread your statement above. The .30x39 - do you
have it on a Contender or an XP-100? The reason I'm curious is if there
are any other calibers offered based on this case - 7mmx39 and, possibly,
any of the PPCs. If it's on your TC,is it a barrel made by TC or
aftermarket?
Greg Hayes
John De Armond
#j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
# I won't let you get away with this. 7mm TC/U is formed from .223 brass,
#not from .308 or 7mmBR brass. For 500 rounds of Remington .223 brass the
#price in the latest catalog is $60.95, for 500 rounds of 30-30 the price
#is $72.95. Once through the neck sizer (I size all my brass before using
#it anyway) and away you go. 7mmBR brass is a special case that costs more
#becuase it is a rather special item and isn't a fair comparison. It is
#only recently available, Remington released the XP-100 in 7mm BR in
#1980 but didn't offer factory brass until 1977. Before that it had
#to be made from special .308 benchrest brass that was even more expensive.
I quoted 7BR because it is the only thing close to 7TC/U that has brass
off the shelf. True 7BR is a special case. But since 7TC/U can't be had
at any price off the shelf, it is even special-er.
# If you like 30-30 better than 7mm TC/U or 7mm BR, just be honest and
#say so without making up stuff to "prove" why.
You're being a bit disingenious here too. True one can "manufacture"
7TC/U from .223 cases in one or 2 passes but one would never shoot
such cases. Requires fireforming. So in addition to the cost of the
cases and your labor in manufacturing the new caliber, you have to add
in the cost of a light load of powder, primer and the bullets for fireforming.
Then you have to add in your labor for TWO reloadings before you
can compete. That brass is pretty expensive at this point.
To be perfectly honest I also fireform my new .30-30 brass before use.
BUT out of the box .30-30 brass is close enough that I can use it
on the chickens and pigs. So all I have to do is put 20 rounds of new
and 20 rounds of old in the ammo box and away I go.
Quite the contrary to your claim, I don't dislike the 7TC/U. Quite the
contrary, I think it's a cute little round. I'd probably consider a
7mm were I to be hunting with my pistol. But at the silhouette line
the 7mm's marginally better ballistics mean nothing while the same very
real list of >>practical<< problems remain. I know a number of top
notch shooters in the local area who have 7mm TC barrels of one form
or the other, all sitting on the shelf. I was lucky enough to be
able to benefit from their experience and save myself a buck or 2.
Grant DeLorean
#gr...@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
#I quoted 7BR because it is the only thing close to 7TC/U that has brass
#off the shelf. True 7BR is a special case. But since 7TC/U can't be had
#at any price off the shelf, it is even special-er.
Actually, a French firm is making 7mm TC/U commercially now... and .223
is the closest thing to 7mm TC/U brass since it is the starting place.
You were either consciously or subconsciously looking for another
strike against the caliber you wanted to downplay.
## If you like 30-30 better than 7mm TC/U or 7mm BR, just be honest and
##say so without making up stuff to "prove" why.
#You're being a bit disingenious here too. True one can "manufacture"
#7TC/U from .223 cases in one or 2 passes but one would never shoot
#such cases. Requires fireforming. So in addition to the cost of the
#cases and your labor in manufacturing the new caliber, you have to add
#in the cost of a light load of powder, primer and the bullets for fireforming.
#Then you have to add in your labor for TWO reloadings before you
#can compete. That brass is pretty expensive at this point.
It is obvious you never used 7mm TC/U. The fireforming loads work as well
as the post fireforming loads. No need to waste powder, primers or bullets.
Most of the folks using it fireform in a match... My first shots through
my TC in 7mm TC/U were in a match and other than needing sight settings
worked very well (31 with a new pistol with no sight settings isn't bad,
most of the misses were looking for chickens and turkeys where the settings
had to be initially set and then changed...). Most of the folks use them
straight away, as there is no problem. Once I had the sight settings I
could hit FP chickens at 200 meters with fireforming loads (which happen
to be the same as my normal 7mm TC/U loads, they worked too well to not
stay with when I still had the gun).
#7mm were I to be hunting with my pistol. But at the silhouette line
#the 7mm's marginally better ballistics mean nothing while the same very
#real list of >>practical<< problems remain. I know a number of top
The "practical problems" you mentioned are unfounded and untrue, based
on someone's bias against the caliber. I really don't care what caliber
people choose to shoot, I just don't think folks should be slamming a
caliber (especially with untruths) just becuase it isn't what they are
using.
#notch shooters in the local area who have 7mm TC barrels of one form
#or the other, all sitting on the shelf. I was lucky enough to be
#able to benefit from their experience and save myself a buck or 2.
I know a lot of top notch shooters myself, and a lot are using 7mm TC/U
barrels. So what? You were "lucky" enough to go along with and like their
personal biases. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't
make the assumption that that bias is the "one truth" and everything
else is wrong and go out of your way to try to prove it even if it takes
misrepresentation. Yes, 30-30 works fine. So do many calibers. Let's just
leave it at that.
Grant DeLorean
#In article <46...@mimsy.umd.edu> gr...@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
## That being said, I am not using 7mm TC/U in production anymore myself.
##I hate the feel of Contenders, even with a set of Grippers on them. They
##chew a hole in my trigger finger with the frame. I am shooting an MOA,
##with a "30x39" (a 7.62x39 using .308 rather than .311 bullets) barrel on
##it as my production gun. My unlimited gun is still a custom XP-100 in
##7mm-08 though...
#I'm not sure if I misread your statement above. The .30x39 - do you
#have it on a Contender or an XP-100? The reason I'm curious is if there
#are any other calibers offered based on this case - 7mmx39 and, possibly,
#any of the PPCs. If it's on your TC,is it a barrel made by TC or
#aftermarket?
It isn't on a TC or in an XP-100. It is in an MOA pistol (Maximum Corp,
look it up in Shooter's Bible or Gun Digest if you want a picture). I
know there is also a 6.5x39 and a 7x39 has been suggested if not made
yet. The 6.5x39 was approved for production class last year, several
people are using it to good effect. It and the globe front sight for the
MOA were approved just before the Ohio state championships in 1991, but
there was some confusion about it at the time with some of the officials...
Grant DeLorean
##Isn't the 6mm BR Remington a more versatile round - as accurate?
#I don't know about the accuracy of any of the BR family; anyone out
#there care to elaborate on their success with any of them? Also, does
#anyone know how they picked up the Bench Rest name? Has a rifle ever
#been used in benchrest competition chambered for one of this family?
They got the name partially because they had to be formed from special
.308 BenchRest brass (thinner walls, small primer pockets) originally.
I do know the 7mm and 6mm varieties are capable of amazing accuracy,
I haven't seen the .22 BR in use to say though.
#In the context of TC Contenders, TC won't chamber anything based on the
#.308 case - not enough meat left around the chamber to safely handle the
#pressure. I even called TC's custom shop to find out for sure and the
#manager echoed this. There may be a custom barrel maker out there who
#does, however. I don't know if I'd want to try it, though; I figure TC
#knows how far they can push it. Anyone have any firsthand info about
#any .308 based TCs?
You may be interested to know that the Contender was originally only
supposed to be chambered for .38 Special and .22LR, it took some
convincing early on to get W.C. to change his mind on that...
FRAM...@skitzo.dseg.ti.com
# Anyone have experience with the .17 Rem barrel?
The .17 is a nice novelty, yet it can be a little tempermental.
I talked to one of the BR guys a while ago in this group and
he said its great fun to experiment with but its kind of difficult
to load for and consistant enough for BR.
FRAM...@skitzo.dseg.ti.com
# In article <46...@mimsy.umd.edu> csc...@menudo.uh.edu (Gregory W. Hayes) writes:
# #
# #I was wondering this myself. Since .222 Rem used to be a real popular
#
# Isn't the 6mm BR Remington a more versatile round - as accurate?
Don't think you'll find this in a TC. There are a lot of
cartidges that should not be chambered in the TC. Too much
pressure for the chamber wall diam.
Skip Egdorf
OK, You've talked me into it. My favorite T/C barrel is my 14" .218 Bee.
I thought for a long while that I was the only one nuts enough to want
one. I even considered getting a Hornet and rechambering it.
Then T/C made a production run...
As accurate as any .22 barrel I've found. Easy to reload, and fun to use.
Skip Egdorf
h...@lanl.gov
Robert D. Houk
In the context of TC Contenders, TC won't chamber anything based on the
.308 case - not enough meat left around the chamber to safely handle the
pressure. I even called TC's custom shop to find out for sure and the
manager echoed this. There may be a custom barrel maker out there who
does, however. I don't know if I'd want to try it, though; I figure TC
knows how far they can push it. Anyone have any firsthand info about
any .308 based TCs?
I don't know about the Contenders, but the Competitor [TC-class, single-
shot, interchangeable barrels, etc.] easily handles .308, and offers
various H&H Magnums, .458 Winchester, etc.
My .308 works like a champ, and is fun to shoot - although the fun starts
wearing out after about a dozen shots...so I sure wouldn't want to fire
an IHMSA course with it (not to mention that the range folks get rather
pissed off with people who punch holes clean through their targets!).
-RDH
John De Armond
#My .308 works like a champ, and is fun to shoot - although the fun starts
#wearing out after about a dozen shots...so I sure wouldn't want to fire
#an IHMSA course with it (not to mention that the range folks get rather
#pissed off with people who punch holes clean through their targets!).
Nahhh. Not bad. I shoot a .308 bolt gun in IHMSA unlimited class.
It helps to use a lite powder and some of this foreign surplus ammo loaded
to primer-flatening pressures is pretty brutal but a properly loaded
round is VERY effective. And no, it does not pop holes through
targets. Unless you load AP rounds, of course. About the only thing
different is occasionally I hear someone say "Oh God, there's the .308
again" and then they start packing in the cotton :-)
John