M1917 ideal bullet

[Enfield Enforcer]

You realize the thread you ask is from 2011?

Yes, I did. I have chosen this one despite this age because no other fits as good as this to my question. This is my impression, Browningautorifle, therefore i wrote this.. .

A good subject should be able to be picked up again.. . :-) I understood it in that way that its undesirable to create "new"Threads if something exists already that fits ?..

Greetings
Enfield Enforcer

[Patrick Chadwick]

Which muzzle-velocities did you reach with all your different cartridges, factory-ammo and handloads ? Especially in 168 grs Match-Ammo and all heavy loads from 168-190 grs ? What is the maximum shooting distance with such ammo ?.. .

Don't waste your time reinventing the wheel. It's all back there in old posts. My Eddystone works excellently (2MOA off a rest @100, 1MOA with scope) with 48gn N140 driving 168gn Sierra MatchKings set 0.5 mm off the lands. Chrony'ed at 2750 fps.

I even posted a chart of the group size variation with load. That took a lot of ammo. It's all in there somewhere, get digging. Try the keyword "Eddy":

[Enfield Enforcer]

Don't waste your time reinventing the wheel. It's all back there in old posts. My Eddystone works excellently (2MOA off a rest @100, 1MOA with scope) with 48gn N140 driving 168gn Sierra MatchKings set 0.5 mm off the lands. Chrony'ed at 2750 fps.

I even posted a chart of the group size variation with load. That took a lot of ammo. It's all in there somewhere, get digging. Try the keyword "Eddy":

Thank you, Patrick. 838 m/s or 2'750 ft/s with the 168 grs SMK and the 1 MOA: that is an interesting information.

I have searched - of course before I answered first to that thread - but i coudn't find what I've been looking for. 4-5 infos for each of these two bullet weights would be great. Yes, i can't spend here too much time. And I'm not a Reloader - yet. I will have a - new - look into this data later.

Have all a good evening !

Greetings from Switzerland
Enfield Enforcer

[Patrick Chadwick]

OK, found it for you:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....t=Eddy+optimum

[CINDERS]

Are you shooting moly coated and then using a normal full patch projectile allot of our full bore and effies went away from the moly coated projectiles just to time consuming coating them and messy hard to get out of the barrels as well they tell me, not sure if its a good idea to shoot both still only going on what I have been told.

[bob q]

After 20 years of test firing over 2000 different military rifles for accuracy I would put a good M-17 in the top 5% . You really can't go wrong with the 168 SMK . A basic guide would be 168 with a burning rate of I-4064 to 180 with I-4350 . The large hole on the rear sight does not help with small groups using iron sights , the rifle is more accurate than the sights lets you shoot . A scope eliminates that problem and the rifle will really deliver small groups . My five original rifles are good for about a 1.6 inch 5-shot average at 100 yards . My one scoped sporter is a 1 inch rifle at 100 yards . I measure my groups in inches as I do not have a measuring tool that reads in MOA or want to do the math to convert from inch to MOA . Plus MOA is a linear optic measurement and since all of my rifles shoot bullets in a parabolic curve , not linear , a MOA size does not make sense to use unless you are mapping terrain .

[Patrick Chadwick]

Are you shooting moly coated and then using a normal full patch projectile

Good question - it shows that I was a touch unclear with the ancient data!

I tried both hand-coated Sierra MatchKings and the ready-coated Lapua Silver Jackets. Without having the time. money or enthusiasm for doing lengthy, expensive and extensive tests on both, the performance was near enough the same - I.e. any difference was less than my PWF. The hand-coating was a PITA and I soon stuck with the Lapua SJs.

The most important thing I learned from the testing was that the powder charge really does make a difference. And it is much easier to find the worst results and then pick a weight in between two worst cases than to find the best value. Somewhere, I must have the chart...

---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------

I measure my groups in inches as I do not have a measuring tool that reads in MOA or want to do the math to convert from inch to MOA .

One inch at 100 yards is close enough to 1 MOA for the average user.

[bob q]

Would not SOA be more exact ?

[Enfield Enforcer]

OK, found it for you:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....t=Eddy+optimum

Thanks !

I will study it in a quiet moment. So the 173-175 gr and 185-190 gr and heavier bullets didn't make it as good or even better than this 168 grain-Loads.. ? That's a bit surprising to me, having a look at the 1:10-twist.

I wish a nice afternoon for all :-)

Greetings
Enfield Enforcer

[Wineman]

The original barrels were five groove, left hand twist. Replacement barrels from High Standard are four groove, right hand twist. The replacement barrels from Johnson Automatics were two groove, right hand twist. In my original barrel, I have found that a 0.3105 bullet from Hornady (Item #3131, meant for the 303 British) is very accurate. It is a Boat Tail 174 grain FMJ. I have also found that flat based 0.308 bullets shoot better than 0.308 Boat Tail bullets. The differences are small though and using a bullet that is larger diameter works for me and is not advice to use it yourself. Please work up any loads carefully, looking for pressure signs.

Dave